4 ms·

Yeah, wind and solar are estimated to be $42.8 and $48.8 per MWh respectively in 2023 [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Ene

by mrep 3y ago

Yeah, wind and solar are estimated to be $42.8 and $48.8 per MWh respectively in 2023 [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Energy_Information_Administration_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

zizee 3y ago
I'm a big fan of wind and solar, but we should compare like for like. AFAICT the numbers quoted here are for wind and solar without storage. We need to compare solar and wind to these SMRs with the desired output characteristics. How acceptable is dropping the output for 10 hours each night, and lose 50% of your max output during long periods? If that's ok for your application, Solar without storage is probably the perfect solution. If you 99.99 of your time to be at a certain output level, all year round, solar is going to require overbuilding, and a weeks worth of storage (which changes the costs per MWh considerably). Likewise, if you need a lot of heat for your application, solar is not going to be as good as an SMR. The best technology is most likely going to be different depending on the use case. SMR would operate in a decently sized niche in our current world. What is not clear to me is how big this niche is, and how quickly it will shrink as gridescale storage tech becomes more economical.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Levelized cost already takes into account the capacity factor of the sources. On a per-peak watt basis, PV is 10x cheaper than nuclear. We can look at the cost of providing steady power (synthetic baseload) from renewables + storage. This is the most favorable comparison for nuclear, since any varying demand enables storage to serve double duty (smoothing variations in both supply and demand). For reasonable cost assumptions, particularly for when any nuclear plant started today could come online, renewables beat nuclear. It's important to use more than just batteries for storage; batteries are not well suited to long term storage. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/
  - zizee 3y ago
    Don't misunderstand: I am a huge proponent of solar/wind + storage and grid interconnectivity. But you have completely talked past my point. > Levelized cost already takes into account the capacity factor of the sources. On a per-peak watt basis, PV is 10x cheaper than nuclear. You sound like you know what you are talking about, so I presume that you know that one of the limitations of Levelized cost is that it doesn't control for "time effects" which was the entire thrust of my comment. > We can look at the cost of providing steady power (synthetic baseload) from renewables + storage Yes, that's what I suggested is a fair comparison. > any nuclear plant started today could come online, renewables beat nuclear. It's important to use more than just batteries for storage; batteries are not well suited to long term storage. There are a lot of unstated assumptions/conditions here. Do you have any references I can read?

by mrep 3y ago

zizee 3y ago

I'm a big fan of wind and solar, but we should compare like for like. AFAICT the numbers quoted here are for wind and solar without storage. We need to compare solar and wind to these SMRs with the desired output characteristics. How acceptable is dropping the output for 10 hours each night, and lose 50% of your max output during long periods? If that's ok for your application, Solar without storage is probably the perfect solution. If you 99.99 of your time to be at a certain output level, all year round, solar is going to require overbuilding, and a weeks worth of storage (which changes the costs per MWh considerably). Likewise, if you need a lot of heat for your application, solar is not going to be as good as an SMR. The best technology is most likely going to be different depending on the use case. SMR would operate in a decently sized niche in our current world. What is not clear to me is how big this niche is, and how quickly it will shrink as gridescale storage tech becomes more economical.

pfdietz 3y ago
Levelized cost already takes into account the capacity factor of the sources. On a per-peak watt basis, PV is 10x cheaper than nuclear. We can look at the cost of providing steady power (synthetic baseload) from renewables + storage. This is the most favorable comparison for nuclear, since any varying demand enables storage to serve double duty (smoothing variations in both supply and demand). For reasonable cost assumptions, particularly for when any nuclear plant started today could come online, renewables beat nuclear. It's important to use more than just batteries for storage; batteries are not well suited to long term storage. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/
- zizee 3y ago
  Don't misunderstand: I am a huge proponent of solar/wind + storage and grid interconnectivity. But you have completely talked past my point. > Levelized cost already takes into account the capacity factor of the sources. On a per-peak watt basis, PV is 10x cheaper than nuclear. You sound like you know what you are talking about, so I presume that you know that one of the limitations of Levelized cost is that it doesn't control for "time effects" which was the entire thrust of my comment. > We can look at the cost of providing steady power (synthetic baseload) from renewables + storage Yes, that's what I suggested is a fair comparison. > any nuclear plant started today could come online, renewables beat nuclear. It's important to use more than just batteries for storage; batteries are not well suited to long term storage. There are a lot of unstated assumptions/conditions here. Do you have any references I can read?