3 ms·

One thing that really struck me recently was an article about the commencement of a massive solar and transmission project in the American Southwest. Total cost

One thing that really struck me recently was an article about the commencement of a massive solar and transmission project in the American Southwest. Total cost for the panels and the transmission lines to deliver the power was something like $11 billion for (I think) around 3 GW of nameplate capacity. Assuming you could site a new nuclear plant somewhat closer to an interconnection point, it seems to me like even modern, over budget, uneconomical nuclear is not all that much more expensive than massive scale renewables. And the capacity factor can’t be beat. If the west could build even a handful of additional plants after Flamanville, Vogtle and the handful of others, is there any reason to think that the next tranche of plants is just hopelessly uneconomical with renewables? To me it seems like even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix.

marssaxman 3y ago
> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix. Who is going around investing in the overall energy mix, though? People with $10 billion to invest aren't thinking "how can I optimize the grid", they're thinking "how can I get the best return on my capital"; renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. If we as a society want someone to build nuclear plants in the near term, for grid-stability reasons, we're probably going to have to subsidize the project.
- sofixa 3y ago
  Maybe critical infrastructure shouldn't be managed by people looking into short term ROI but long term and big scale planning.
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    It is run by those people but cost matters in a capitalist society, so you have to consider it alongside the actual engineering numbers. If you want socialism for energy, we can have that, but I’ll tell you now that the government will spend way more to operate a nuclear plant than it’s going to be worth. Look at navy nuclear stuff, it’s so dang expensive.
- realusername 3y ago
  > renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities. So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    And you'd charge the nuclear extra too because, despite what the people here who seem to hate renewables more than they like nuclear believe, the energy delivered by nuclear is not magic and needs to be matched to demand too. Which is why we've built pumped hydro and implemented Time of Use pricing for many decades to help nuclear energy integrate well with the grid.
    - realusername 3y ago
      That's already what happens, that's why it's so expensive. You usually have an all included costs on one side and whatever minimum the private company could get away with legally on the other side.
      - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
        You think the price of nuclear in France includes the environmental damage caused by the gas plants they use to balance the grid? Where did you get this idea from?
        realusername 3y ago
        The French gas plants got built to smooth out renewables, there's only a single gas plant built before 2010 and it wasn't even connected to the pipelines, it was a factory gas reuse. I do think it was an environmental and diplomatic (as seen now in the Russian war) mistake.
- nocoiner 3y ago
  The costs of a reliable grid and sufficiently dispatchable electricity are gonna get paid one way or another if the grid customers expect that level of service. There are lots of ways those costs can be allocated - from user fees in deregulated markets or from ratepayers in vertically integrated systems, and probably a million permutations in between - but those costs are there and someone’s gonna pay them. A long-life highly available nuke plant at 3x the cost of nameplate renewable production doesn’t seem like much more than an immaterial cost difference at the end of the day.
iknowstuff 3y ago
Huh? The newest AP1000s in Georgia cost 34B (and counting) for 2237MWe. That’s like 4x the cost per GW in the numbers you quotes for the solar installation. But wait, there’s more! horrible ROI and massive cost overruns: > During the construction of Vogtle's first two units, capital investment required jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion.[7] ($18.3 billion in 2022 dollars[8]) > Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed in July 2023.[9][10][11] This last report blames the latest increase in costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[12] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[13] By 2021 they were estimated to be over $28.5 billion.[14] In 2023 costs had increased to $34 billion, with work still to be completed on Vogtle 4.[15] So why bother? Because base load? I mean damn, why not just toss in a couple Moss Landing type tesla megapack installations instead? At 2.2GW, even if u wanted to store power for 12h, thats 26GWh. Moss Landing is 2.8GWh and it cost $560 million.
- eightysixfour 3y ago
  There are two key points of contention I have with your argument, which you have posted multiple times verbatim. 1. The whole point is Nuclear does not have to cost this much, thus your comparisons are irrelevant. China’s build costs are substantially lower so it can be done. 2. For a not-insignificant percentage of the global population that can consider mega projects of this scale neither wind nor solar are reliable enough during peak energy season - the winter - to use even massive battery packs like you have described.
sofixa 3y ago
> To me it seems like even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix And don't forget that a nuclear reactor can easily push 70+ years with some maintenance and refreshes, meanwhile solar panels and batteries are drastically less effective after ~15-20 years at most.

marssaxman 3y ago

> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix. Who is going around investing in the overall energy mix, though? People with $10 billion to invest aren't thinking "how can I optimize the grid", they're thinking "how can I get the best return on my capital"; renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. If we as a society want someone to build nuclear plants in the near term, for grid-stability reasons, we're probably going to have to subsidize the project.

sofixa 3y ago
Maybe critical infrastructure shouldn't be managed by people looking into short term ROI but long term and big scale planning.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  It is run by those people but cost matters in a capitalist society, so you have to consider it alongside the actual engineering numbers. If you want socialism for energy, we can have that, but I’ll tell you now that the government will spend way more to operate a nuclear plant than it’s going to be worth. Look at navy nuclear stuff, it’s so dang expensive.
realusername 3y ago
> renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities. So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  And you'd charge the nuclear extra too because, despite what the people here who seem to hate renewables more than they like nuclear believe, the energy delivered by nuclear is not magic and needs to be matched to demand too. Which is why we've built pumped hydro and implemented Time of Use pricing for many decades to help nuclear energy integrate well with the grid.
  - realusername 3y ago
    That's already what happens, that's why it's so expensive. You usually have an all included costs on one side and whatever minimum the private company could get away with legally on the other side.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      You think the price of nuclear in France includes the environmental damage caused by the gas plants they use to balance the grid? Where did you get this idea from?
      - realusername 3y ago
        The French gas plants got built to smooth out renewables, there's only a single gas plant built before 2010 and it wasn't even connected to the pipelines, it was a factory gas reuse. I do think it was an environmental and diplomatic (as seen now in the Russian war) mistake.
nocoiner 3y ago
The costs of a reliable grid and sufficiently dispatchable electricity are gonna get paid one way or another if the grid customers expect that level of service. There are lots of ways those costs can be allocated - from user fees in deregulated markets or from ratepayers in vertically integrated systems, and probably a million permutations in between - but those costs are there and someone’s gonna pay them. A long-life highly available nuke plant at 3x the cost of nameplate renewable production doesn’t seem like much more than an immaterial cost difference at the end of the day.

iknowstuff 3y ago

Huh? The newest AP1000s in Georgia cost 34B (and counting) for 2237MWe. That’s like 4x the cost per GW in the numbers you quotes for the solar installation. But wait, there’s more! horrible ROI and massive cost overruns: > During the construction of Vogtle's first two units, capital investment required jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion.[7] ($18.3 billion in 2022 dollars[8]) > Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed in July 2023.[9][10][11] This last report blames the latest increase in costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[12] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[13] By 2021 they were estimated to be over $28.5 billion.[14] In 2023 costs had increased to $34 billion, with work still to be completed on Vogtle 4.[15] So why bother? Because base load? I mean damn, why not just toss in a couple Moss Landing type tesla megapack installations instead? At 2.2GW, even if u wanted to store power for 12h, thats 26GWh. Moss Landing is 2.8GWh and it cost $560 million.

eightysixfour 3y ago
There are two key points of contention I have with your argument, which you have posted multiple times verbatim. 1. The whole point is Nuclear does not have to cost this much, thus your comparisons are irrelevant. China’s build costs are substantially lower so it can be done. 2. For a not-insignificant percentage of the global population that can consider mega projects of this scale neither wind nor solar are reliable enough during peak energy season - the winter - to use even massive battery packs like you have described.

sofixa 3y ago

> To me it seems like even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix And don't forget that a nuclear reactor can easily push 70+ years with some maintenance and refreshes, meanwhile solar panels and batteries are drastically less effective after ~15-20 years at most.