29 ms·
1) "below nuclear" is a very flexible concept (the Levy plant in Florida cost $1 billion and they didn't even break ground) and people often confidently assume
by nebulousmenace 3y ago
1) "below nuclear" is a very flexible concept (the Levy plant in Florida cost $1 billion and they didn't even break ground) and people often confidently assume a nuclear price that is three times smaller than actual building costs.
2)"purely renewable" is a small phrase about a big assumption. 80% solar/wind is cheaper than operating what the US has right now; solving the last 20% has a number of options and we don't know which will work, but while we are quadrupling our current level of solar and wind we have some time to work on that. (Noon Energy makes some attractive claims but it's very early days.)
3) A small amount of "clean firm power" - almost anything's cheaper than nuclear- saves a large amount of storage. Maybe that's closed loop geothermal, maybe that's synthetic natural gas, maybe it's nuclear, but nuclear is REALLY expensive.
- concordDance 3y agoEven the ridiculous latest plants with 5x cost overruns costing £35 billion seem to have a lifetime electricity cost of around €0.05/kWh. That doesn't seem "really expensive" to me. Old 70s style nuclear power is under €0.01/kWh. I also think your 80% is optimistic and it'll start to become much harder to integrate in once we go over 50% total yearly electricity production. Going to need large natural gas plants just lying around idle for most of the year.