2 ms·

Huge differences based on region and technology. In California solar PV may generate 30% of its max capacity in a year due to nights and clouds, whereas in Seat

Huge differences based on region and technology. In California solar PV may generate 30% of its max capacity in a year due to nights and clouds, whereas in Seattle it may be well below 20% due to no sun in winter. Wind averages 35% due to lulls. Nuclear is about 92% (has to shut down every 2 years to refuel). Hydro often is run around 40% (depends on water availability). So building 13.7 GW of nuclear capacity in a northern region could generate ~5x more clean energy per year than 13.7 GW of solar capacity. Not sure if Apple is investing in nuclear or not. (:

Retric 4y ago
Nameplate capacity is so vastly cheaper with solar it more than offsets that difference in all but the worst locations. In Nevada you nuclear is means paying 10x as much to get a 90% capacity factor vs 30% for solar. So you build 3x as much solar and a ton of batteries and still cost less than nuclear while being able to follow the demand curve.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  If you only look at LCOE and ignore backup, transmission, recycling at scale, etc then sure!
  - Retric 4y ago
    LCOE is vastly lower for battery backed solar, that’s why it’s so cheap. You also don’t need backup with batteries that’s the entire point. Individual nuclear power plants are single points of failure and go offline randomly. Nuclear needs redundancy to ensure a stable grid which further increases its costs. Transmission is again worse for nuclear because it’s so centralized. With solar you can locate it much closer to end users which cuts down on annual transmission losses.
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      I live in Seattle and promise you that solar plus batteries is not cheaper. The single point of failure argunent doesn't make any sense when you're attached to a regional electricity grid with hundreds of generators on it.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Seattle is an extremely unusual location being both far north and very rainy. But that much rain provides plenty of hydropower which completely changes the equation.

Retric 4y ago

Nameplate capacity is so vastly cheaper with solar it more than offsets that difference in all but the worst locations. In Nevada you nuclear is means paying 10x as much to get a 90% capacity factor vs 30% for solar. So you build 3x as much solar and a ton of batteries and still cost less than nuclear while being able to follow the demand curve.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
If you only look at LCOE and ignore backup, transmission, recycling at scale, etc then sure!
- Retric 4y ago
  LCOE is vastly lower for battery backed solar, that’s why it’s so cheap. You also don’t need backup with batteries that’s the entire point. Individual nuclear power plants are single points of failure and go offline randomly. Nuclear needs redundancy to ensure a stable grid which further increases its costs. Transmission is again worse for nuclear because it’s so centralized. With solar you can locate it much closer to end users which cuts down on annual transmission losses.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    I live in Seattle and promise you that solar plus batteries is not cheaper. The single point of failure argunent doesn't make any sense when you're attached to a regional electricity grid with hundreds of generators on it.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Seattle is an extremely unusual location being both far north and very rainy. But that much rain provides plenty of hydropower which completely changes the equation.