3 ms·

This doesnt take into account capacity factors. A "800MW" solar plant would be expected to actually product 10-25% of that after day/night and seasons are taken

This doesnt take into account capacity factors. A "800MW" solar plant would be expected to actually product 10-25% of that after day/night and seasons are taken into account. Nuclear plants are more of a 90+% capacity factor.

lambda 3y ago
Yes, it's an over-simplification. But this is an area of the country where capacity factors are in the 25-30% range: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832 (the Ute Mountain Reservation is in the very Southwestern corner of Colorado, a little bit of New Mexico, and a little bit of Utah: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ute+Mountain+Reservation,+Ute+Mountain,+CO/@36.9860355,-110.0175149,7.38z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x873bd7158d6a46d3:0xdee57e72390f2dd0!8m2!3d37.1874945!4d-108.688151!16s%2Fm%2F025_s_k?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ute+Mountain+Reservation,+...) So even if you discount the capacity by a 25% capacity factor, and use the lower cost per reactor that I originally quoted, this is still cheaper than nuclear. And that's just the up-front investment. Operating costs are much cheaper for solar as well, the majority of the cost is in the initial build. Given that transmission isn't free, there are areas of the country where solar has a lower capacity factor than this, and solar and wind take more land, there are still cases where nuclear may be a better investment. I'm just pointing out that there are plenty of simple, economic reasons why solar and wind are growing at a much faster rate than nuclear; it's cheaper overall, it requires less up-front capital, etc. Nuclear is likely to fill niches for a long time, but investment in nuclear is not going to be the major way to decarbonize.
- belorn 3y ago
  Building nuclear in a desert feel a bit like building hydropower dams in a desert. It does not really make sense and whatever the capacity factor is, being in a desert should increase it. The only real drawback to building solar power in a desert is sand storms. That means the capacity factor is less relevant but life span and repair costs is a different matter. It is a bit similar to ocean wind farms. The capacity naturally goes up, but the salt water and transportation (as well as increased risks to engineers) makes life span and repair a bit more of an issue (it should be noted that most ocean based wind farms tend to use shallows and nature reserves near large cities). But again, this project is built in a desert. The very definition of a place with consistent amount of sun. I hope the project works out.
  - SoftwareMaven 3y ago
    There is an ecological cost to miles and miles of solar panels. Desert ecosystems are extremely fragile, and these kinds of projects can be very damaging. It’s not just wasteland. (Said as a desert Southwest denizen and lover who gets the impression that many people think, “oh, there’s no trees? It’s unimportant land.”) I want the Utes to have success in this, but I don’t want the general attitude to be “trash the desert because there is sun there”.
    - usrusr 3y ago
      The ecosystem will change, no doubt about that. Just like it changes when we start agriculture somewhere, or pastoralism. Even if we consider that the new ecosystem of desert with a lot of shade might affect neighboring pristine desert within quite a radius, there will still be a lot left in the foreseeable future. Very much unlike agriculture and pastoralism, which have been pushed into almost every corner even remotely viable for millennia. It might be worthwhile to exclude certain areas of particularly rare variations of the ecosystem to be built in. But it's easy to end up with too much red tape that will be abused for NIMBY and by people who hide a fossil yolo attitude behind a facade of conservationism. Perhaps there could be some mechanism for operating some veto quota, "pick the project you want most desperately to be stopped"? That scheme would probably end getting gamed in the ugliest ways, with sacrificial decoy projects getting proposed, not vetoed and then getting built to keep up appearances. Better not, heh.
      - krupan 3y ago
        Exactly. And a nuclear plant does not change the ecosystem like all those other things you mentioned.
        usrusr 3y ago
        Good luck finding a spare river or two to evaporate for cooling. And not changing ecosystems in the process. An that's before even mentioning the other thing. Would you be interested in talking about uranium mines? Oh, not the other thing you expected?
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
The LCOE cost advantage of alternative energy vs ... everything ... at this point is well known and calculated in Lazard's yearly LCOE study. Nuke advocates do themselves no favors playing shell games and weasel words with the economics. Nuclear is expensive. The nuclear industry needs to figure out how to make it a lot cheaper. And no, it's not just the NIMBY regulation. The legacy nuke industry has a ton of deeply embedded lobbying and relationships with the regulatory agencies and congress, including ancillary groups that do fuel rod reprocessing and waste transport, cushy high-cost satellite industries. Nuclear is stuck in a rut. Economically viable nuclear needs a clean-slate redesign and all the old players need to be thrown out. Computer designs, modern software and sensors, materials, etc. Research LFTR to the wazoo. One of the big pushes IMO should be the US Navy, which should start using nuclear power for all its fleet ships not just subs/carriers.
- cornholio 3y ago
  Solar is cheaper when you have a flexible and well interconnected grid capable of smoothing out, say, a cloud passing over Ute nation land and abruptly pulling 1GW out of the grid. That kind of grid costs money and we have no idea how much and how achievable it is. The alternative, grid scale storage for the full rated power, is still insanely expensive and makes renewables completely uncompetitive. Yes, nuclear is getting buried on price, but you make out the total cost of solar much lower and much more certain than it is in reality. Nobody really knows how much will renewables end up costing when they start to make up the majority of production.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Australian research on this suggests renewables will still be cheapest as the grid moves to fully carbon free, includin the cost to integrate with the grid: https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/october/gencost-explainer https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/october/genco... > Even with this extra VRE cost in 2030, the answer to whether renewables are the cheapest form of energy is still yes. And it remains so when VRE is at 90 percent of the energy system
  - AtlasBarfed 3y ago

lambda 3y ago

Yes, it's an over-simplification. But this is an area of the country where capacity factors are in the 25-30% range: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832 (the Ute Mountain Reservation is in the very Southwestern corner of Colorado, a little bit of New Mexico, and a little bit of Utah: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ute+Mountain+Reservation,+Ute+Mountain,+CO/@36.9860355,-110.0175149,7.38z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x873bd7158d6a46d3:0xdee57e72390f2dd0!8m2!3d37.1874945!4d-108.688151!16s%2Fm%2F025_s_k?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ute+Mountain+Reservation,+...) So even if you discount the capacity by a 25% capacity factor, and use the lower cost per reactor that I originally quoted, this is still cheaper than nuclear. And that's just the up-front investment. Operating costs are much cheaper for solar as well, the majority of the cost is in the initial build. Given that transmission isn't free, there are areas of the country where solar has a lower capacity factor than this, and solar and wind take more land, there are still cases where nuclear may be a better investment. I'm just pointing out that there are plenty of simple, economic reasons why solar and wind are growing at a much faster rate than nuclear; it's cheaper overall, it requires less up-front capital, etc. Nuclear is likely to fill niches for a long time, but investment in nuclear is not going to be the major way to decarbonize.

belorn 3y ago
Building nuclear in a desert feel a bit like building hydropower dams in a desert. It does not really make sense and whatever the capacity factor is, being in a desert should increase it. The only real drawback to building solar power in a desert is sand storms. That means the capacity factor is less relevant but life span and repair costs is a different matter. It is a bit similar to ocean wind farms. The capacity naturally goes up, but the salt water and transportation (as well as increased risks to engineers) makes life span and repair a bit more of an issue (it should be noted that most ocean based wind farms tend to use shallows and nature reserves near large cities). But again, this project is built in a desert. The very definition of a place with consistent amount of sun. I hope the project works out.
- SoftwareMaven 3y ago
  There is an ecological cost to miles and miles of solar panels. Desert ecosystems are extremely fragile, and these kinds of projects can be very damaging. It’s not just wasteland. (Said as a desert Southwest denizen and lover who gets the impression that many people think, “oh, there’s no trees? It’s unimportant land.”) I want the Utes to have success in this, but I don’t want the general attitude to be “trash the desert because there is sun there”.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    The ecosystem will change, no doubt about that. Just like it changes when we start agriculture somewhere, or pastoralism. Even if we consider that the new ecosystem of desert with a lot of shade might affect neighboring pristine desert within quite a radius, there will still be a lot left in the foreseeable future. Very much unlike agriculture and pastoralism, which have been pushed into almost every corner even remotely viable for millennia. It might be worthwhile to exclude certain areas of particularly rare variations of the ecosystem to be built in. But it's easy to end up with too much red tape that will be abused for NIMBY and by people who hide a fossil yolo attitude behind a facade of conservationism. Perhaps there could be some mechanism for operating some veto quota, "pick the project you want most desperately to be stopped"? That scheme would probably end getting gamed in the ugliest ways, with sacrificial decoy projects getting proposed, not vetoed and then getting built to keep up appearances. Better not, heh.
    - krupan 3y ago
      Exactly. And a nuclear plant does not change the ecosystem like all those other things you mentioned.
      - usrusr 3y ago
        Good luck finding a spare river or two to evaporate for cooling. And not changing ecosystems in the process. An that's before even mentioning the other thing. Would you be interested in talking about uranium mines? Oh, not the other thing you expected?

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

The LCOE cost advantage of alternative energy vs ... everything ... at this point is well known and calculated in Lazard's yearly LCOE study. Nuke advocates do themselves no favors playing shell games and weasel words with the economics. Nuclear is expensive. The nuclear industry needs to figure out how to make it a lot cheaper. And no, it's not just the NIMBY regulation. The legacy nuke industry has a ton of deeply embedded lobbying and relationships with the regulatory agencies and congress, including ancillary groups that do fuel rod reprocessing and waste transport, cushy high-cost satellite industries. Nuclear is stuck in a rut. Economically viable nuclear needs a clean-slate redesign and all the old players need to be thrown out. Computer designs, modern software and sensors, materials, etc. Research LFTR to the wazoo. One of the big pushes IMO should be the US Navy, which should start using nuclear power for all its fleet ships not just subs/carriers.

cornholio 3y ago
Solar is cheaper when you have a flexible and well interconnected grid capable of smoothing out, say, a cloud passing over Ute nation land and abruptly pulling 1GW out of the grid. That kind of grid costs money and we have no idea how much and how achievable it is. The alternative, grid scale storage for the full rated power, is still insanely expensive and makes renewables completely uncompetitive. Yes, nuclear is getting buried on price, but you make out the total cost of solar much lower and much more certain than it is in reality. Nobody really knows how much will renewables end up costing when they start to make up the majority of production.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Australian research on this suggests renewables will still be cheapest as the grid moves to fully carbon free, includin the cost to integrate with the grid: https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/october/gencost-explainer https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/october/genco... > Even with this extra VRE cost in 2030, the answer to whether renewables are the cheapest form of energy is still yes. And it remains so when VRE is at 90 percent of the energy system
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago