4 ms·

LCOE doesn't account for storage, grid extension necessary and for the fact that nuclear can work for 100 years but solar panels and wind turbines have to be re

by kgabis 3y ago

LCOE doesn't account for storage, grid extension necessary and for the fact that nuclear can work for 100 years but solar panels and wind turbines have to be replaced after 20-30. Also, wind and solar where? Solar and wind vary greatly based on where they're installed, yet everyone throws these values around like a solar panel in Greenland would be as efficient as one in Sahara.

pydry 3y ago
It doesn't account for storage (obviously, I think I was pretty clear that this would increase the price from 1/5th to < 3/5ths) or for grid upgrades but LCOE absolutely does account for the projected lifespan of the generating assets. 100 years is, by the way, ludicrously optimistic for a nuclear power plant lifespan. If we ran nuclear power plants that long past their projected lifespans then quite a few would go kaboom.
- kgabis 3y ago
  What did you base your storage cost calculation on? LCOE doesn't account for nuclear running much longer than 20-40 years. And 100 years is not ludicrous, 2 units in the US have been approved to work for 80 years, 100 is not far off if properly maintained.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >What did you base your storage cost calculation on? Check the link above. >LCOE doesn't account for nuclear running much longer than 20-40 I can assure you that LCOE does not assume a nuclear power station lasts 20 years. It assumes a normal lifetime - neither too short nor a lifetime that would induce catastrophic risks (e.g. 100 years). I've seen no evidence that standard LCOE models under or overestimate solar/wind/nuclear power lifetimes at different rates and it would be presumptuous to assume that they do without evidence.
    - kgabis 3y ago
      Your link doesn't say anything about what you proposed regarding storing energy using hydrogen and how much it's supposed to cost. LCOE assumes that nuclear plants will last for 40 years which is wildly off so yes, it favors renewables. And no, running plants for 100 years would not induce catastrophic risks if you engineer for it.

by kgabis 3y ago

pydry 3y ago

It doesn't account for storage (obviously, I think I was pretty clear that this would increase the price from 1/5th to < 3/5ths) or for grid upgrades but LCOE absolutely does account for the projected lifespan of the generating assets. 100 years is, by the way, ludicrously optimistic for a nuclear power plant lifespan. If we ran nuclear power plants that long past their projected lifespans then quite a few would go kaboom.

kgabis 3y ago
What did you base your storage cost calculation on? LCOE doesn't account for nuclear running much longer than 20-40 years. And 100 years is not ludicrous, 2 units in the US have been approved to work for 80 years, 100 is not far off if properly maintained.
- pydry 3y ago
  >What did you base your storage cost calculation on? Check the link above. >LCOE doesn't account for nuclear running much longer than 20-40 I can assure you that LCOE does not assume a nuclear power station lasts 20 years. It assumes a normal lifetime - neither too short nor a lifetime that would induce catastrophic risks (e.g. 100 years). I've seen no evidence that standard LCOE models under or overestimate solar/wind/nuclear power lifetimes at different rates and it would be presumptuous to assume that they do without evidence.
  - kgabis 3y ago
    Your link doesn't say anything about what you proposed regarding storing energy using hydrogen and how much it's supposed to cost. LCOE assumes that nuclear plants will last for 40 years which is wildly off so yes, it favors renewables. And no, running plants for 100 years would not induce catastrophic risks if you engineer for it.