3 ms·
That number does include the cost of land for the solar, which is fairly insignificant. For the cost of batteries, NREL published this review of reviews, and l
by epistasis 3y ago
That number does include the cost of land for the solar, which is fairly insignificant.
For the cost of batteries, NREL published this review of reviews, and lands at ~480/kWh of capacity:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf
So split the $35B (there's a recent $3B that hasn't made it wikipedia, as I understand it) half and half, and you get 17GW of solar, and 36GWh of storage.
As far as translating this into per-kWh costs, most estimates I have seen put Vogtle at $0.17-$0.18/kWh. The equivalent for solar is $0.04/kWh. To charge a battery with that same solar, and then deliver it later, it's $0.13/kWh, when doing the napkin math with those NREL numbers up there.
- cma 3y agoLifetime of panels and batteries vs modern nuclear plant? I guess also do the nuclear numbers use the real liability and disposal costs, or subsidized ones?
- epistasis 3y agoThe cost per kWh numbers take into account lifetimes and nuclear waste disposal
- cma 3y agoWhat about Proce Anderson liability cap? Potential trillion dollar incidents reduced to $10 billion cap.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoPV panels will produce for at least 25-30 years with limited degradation in output. At that time, consider what state of the art will be, and that you can repower an existing PV plant trivially; you de-energize segments, manual labor replaces panels, and you re-energize. Old panels will get shipped for recycling (shredded and materials sorted for reuse).