4 ms·
That's fair, I wonder if there are numbers on running costs. I'm certain nuclear running costs would dwarf solar - I think solar just needs fresh water, cleani
by apatheticonion 3y ago
That's fair, I wonder if there are numbers on running costs.
I'm certain nuclear running costs would dwarf solar - I think solar just needs fresh water, cleaning and hardware maintenance (replacing inverters, and such).
Would be interesting to work the running costs into the "$ per realized W" calculation.
I'd also like to see how battery-backed solar compares. I assume the objective would be to solve the intermittency issue, but I am hopeful it would increase the capacity factor as well.
Another thing that's interesting to consider is multi-purpose energy utilization you get with nuclear - like desalination and hydrogen generation - though the latter is uneconomical because hydrogen produced from fossil fuels is much cheaper.
- hef19898 3y agoHad to dig in my comments, but there you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38303819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38303819 Self citing: Better not use biased opinion pieces, when there numbers from government sources (US, but eho cares): LCOE (total, incl. CAPEX, in USD per MWh): coal 82.6, combined cycle 39.9, advanced nuclear 81.7, geothermal 37.6, biomass 90.1, onshore wind 40, offshore wind (that one was a surprise, since offshore wind should be quite cheap, mainly driven by capital cost of 104 USD per MWh) 105, solar 33.8, solar hybrid 49 and hydro 64. Variable cost (same as above): coal 23.7, combined cycle 27.7, adv. nuclear 10.3, geothermal 1.2, biomass 30, onshore wind 0, offshore wind 0, solar 0, solar hybrid 0, hydro 4.1 All number from here: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation...., page 9.
- ametrau 3y agoDoes the solar figure include the batteries? It is very sad that nuclear is actually cheaper than coal.