11 ms·

Interesting, much cheaper than solar.

by todd8 4y ago

Traubenfuchs 4y ago
The article states the opposite? "Utility-scale solar-plus-storage costs are about $45/MWh; wind power costs are $30/MWh; and stand-alone utility-scale solar costs are at $32/MWh, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis."
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >a levelized cost The LCOE "represents the average revenue per unit of electricity generated that would be required to recover the costs of building and operating a generating plant during an assumed financial life and duty cycle", and is calculated as the ratio between all the discounted costs over the lifetime of an electricity generating plant divided by a discounted sum of the actual energy amounts delivered. Inputs to LCOE are chosen by the estimator. They can include the cost of capital, decommissioning, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate I think solar should be a major part of any future energy generation regime, but I've also never seen an LCOE for solar that I actually believe. They also ignore the timing mismatch between generation and consumption (batteries help there, but even then, it's still a challenge to maintain an on-demand grid with solar).
adastra22 4y ago
Nuclear is fundamentally cheaper than nearly any other energy source. However our laws are backwards: regulators are required to increase safety standards for nuclear so long as it is cheaper, until the costs are brought up to par with other energy sources. As a result, nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than anything else, and burdens costs that other energy sources don't have to account for, yet it is perpetually no cheaper than coal or natural gas. It's blatant regulatory capture by fossil fuel in the name of "environmentalism."
- pydry 4y ago
  It isnt the law making it expensive. It's capital costs. It would be even more expensive if it didnt get a free ride on insurance - through disaster liability caps set at ~0.05% of the costs of one Fukushima.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    But the point is those capital costs are so high because nuclear is required to meet a threshold of safety far, far in excess of any other energy source. There are instances of nuclear plants having to shield radiation to be lower than background levels. Which beyond being absolutely pointless, it adds weight, which adds concrete, which adds capital costs and CO2 emissions.
    - pydry 4y ago
      The only reason it exists at all is because it gets a free ride on insurance through the catastrophe liability cap. IMHO it's a bit premature to talk about deregulating it without first making sure it shoulders full liability for the damage it would cause by neglecting important safety.
      - nullc 4y ago
        You can easily find the locations of coal power plants by looking at maps of cancer rates. Nuclear is the only 'energy source' that is required to capture pretty much any of its externalities at all, so arguments that they don't capture all of them are a bit odd.
        pydry 4y ago
        If it has a catastrophe liability cap how can it possibly be capturing all of its externalities? Nuclear power never pays for disaster cleanup and still can't compete with renewables.
- jltsiren 4y ago
jnsaff2 4y ago
I don’t know what your comparison is. Here solar is about half that. I even managed to install solar on my roof for about 35EUR/MWh.
- todd8 4y ago
  Solar power isn't available 24 hours per day so the LCOE (levelized cost of energy) for solar is claimed be be between $59 to $91 per MWh, see [1], lets say $75/MWh, already higher than the article's $60/MWh cost for nuclear. However, nuclear power is available 24 hours a day every day, rain or shine, summer or winter. To reach this level of availability a PV system would need to have battery back up. Let's be conservative and say 10 hours of battery is enough. This won't be enough during a hurricane or harsh winter weather with no sun for days, but let's assume 10 hours of battery is enough. Now how much does the PV system's battery cost? I don't have figures for a 10 hour battery system. I do have an estimate based on a review of research literature for 6 hours of battery storage. According to [2], a 6 hour system in 2030 may cost under $180/Kwh. However, we've been talking Mwh not Kwh so this is $180,000/Mwh. Unless you don't care about electricity when the sun isn't shining, nuclear is much cheaper. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... [2] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf
  - jnsaff2 4y ago
    Now you are just arguing for sake of arguing. I was replying to your context free claim which was simply untrue. If you go to system-level energy cost with the constraint that it has to cover demand all the time then of course you end up with different numbers. For me, I have a battery system. With the LCOE of about 65EUR/MWh. It's good for 6h in the winter and combined with solar probably good for the entire summer. Your numbers for battery cost are for installed capacity, but you are not using the battery one time, you cycle it thousands of times and therefore need to divide that 180k number by a number between 1000 and 10000 most likely. Problem for people in my latitude is seasonal storage, I don't believe batteries will ever be an efficient solution for that.
- 4y ago

Interesting, much cheaper than solar.

by todd8 4y ago

Interesting, much cheaper than solar.

The article states the opposite? "Utility-scale solar-plus-storage costs are about $45/MWh; wind power costs are $30/MWh; and stand-alone utility-scale solar costs are at $32/MWh, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis."

RC_ITR 4y ago
>a levelized cost The LCOE "represents the average revenue per unit of electricity generated that would be required to recover the costs of building and operating a generating plant during an assumed financial life and duty cycle", and is calculated as the ratio between all the discounted costs over the lifetime of an electricity generating plant divided by a discounted sum of the actual energy amounts delivered. Inputs to LCOE are chosen by the estimator. They can include the cost of capital, decommissioning, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate I think solar should be a major part of any future energy generation regime, but I've also never seen an LCOE for solar that I actually believe. They also ignore the timing mismatch between generation and consumption (batteries help there, but even then, it's still a challenge to maintain an on-demand grid with solar).

adastra22 4y ago

Nuclear is fundamentally cheaper than nearly any other energy source. However our laws are backwards: regulators are required to increase safety standards for nuclear so long as it is cheaper, until the costs are brought up to par with other energy sources. As a result, nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than anything else, and burdens costs that other energy sources don't have to account for, yet it is perpetually no cheaper than coal or natural gas. It's blatant regulatory capture by fossil fuel in the name of "environmentalism."

pydry 4y ago
It isnt the law making it expensive. It's capital costs. It would be even more expensive if it didnt get a free ride on insurance - through disaster liability caps set at ~0.05% of the costs of one Fukushima.
- adastra22 4y ago
  But the point is those capital costs are so high because nuclear is required to meet a threshold of safety far, far in excess of any other energy source. There are instances of nuclear plants having to shield radiation to be lower than background levels. Which beyond being absolutely pointless, it adds weight, which adds concrete, which adds capital costs and CO2 emissions.
  - pydry 4y ago
    The only reason it exists at all is because it gets a free ride on insurance through the catastrophe liability cap. IMHO it's a bit premature to talk about deregulating it without first making sure it shoulders full liability for the damage it would cause by neglecting important safety.
    - nullc 4y ago
      You can easily find the locations of coal power plants by looking at maps of cancer rates. Nuclear is the only 'energy source' that is required to capture pretty much any of its externalities at all, so arguments that they don't capture all of them are a bit odd.
      - pydry 4y ago
        If it has a catastrophe liability cap how can it possibly be capturing all of its externalities? Nuclear power never pays for disaster cleanup and still can't compete with renewables.
jltsiren 4y ago

jnsaff2 4y ago

I don’t know what your comparison is. Here solar is about half that. I even managed to install solar on my roof for about 35EUR/MWh.

todd8 4y ago
Solar power isn't available 24 hours per day so the LCOE (levelized cost of energy) for solar is claimed be be between $59 to $91 per MWh, see [1], lets say $75/MWh, already higher than the article's $60/MWh cost for nuclear. However, nuclear power is available 24 hours a day every day, rain or shine, summer or winter. To reach this level of availability a PV system would need to have battery back up. Let's be conservative and say 10 hours of battery is enough. This won't be enough during a hurricane or harsh winter weather with no sun for days, but let's assume 10 hours of battery is enough. Now how much does the PV system's battery cost? I don't have figures for a 10 hour battery system. I do have an estimate based on a review of research literature for 6 hours of battery storage. According to [2], a 6 hour system in 2030 may cost under $180/Kwh. However, we've been talking Mwh not Kwh so this is $180,000/Mwh. Unless you don't care about electricity when the sun isn't shining, nuclear is much cheaper. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... [2] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf
- jnsaff2 4y ago
  Now you are just arguing for sake of arguing. I was replying to your context free claim which was simply untrue. If you go to system-level energy cost with the constraint that it has to cover demand all the time then of course you end up with different numbers. For me, I have a battery system. With the LCOE of about 65EUR/MWh. It's good for 6h in the winter and combined with solar probably good for the entire summer. Your numbers for battery cost are for installed capacity, but you are not using the battery one time, you cycle it thousands of times and therefore need to divide that 180k number by a number between 1000 and 10000 most likely. Problem for people in my latitude is seasonal storage, I don't believe batteries will ever be an efficient solution for that.
4y ago