4 ms·

Can we escape this by using solar + a battery and disconnecting from the grid?

by Ancalagon 3y ago

beretguy 3y ago
No. Nuclear is the way to go.
- iknowstuff 3y ago
  Nah. The construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia provides a real-world example to re-evaluate the costs associated with building nuclear power versus a combination of solar power and battery storage. The Plant Vogtle expansion involved the construction of two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, which faced significant delays and cost overruns. Initially estimated to cost around $14 billion with an expected operational start in 2016, the project's expenses ballooned to over $30 billion, more than double the original estimate. This increase does not include an additional $3.68 billion paid by the original contractor, Westinghouse, to the owners after going bankrupt, which brings the total spending to more than $34 billion. The construction started in 2009, with Unit 3 reaching "initial criticality" in 2023, marking the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction. Unit 3 is expected to come into service in mid-2023, with Unit 4 following in late 2023 or early 2024 [1](https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-arrives-7-years-late-17b-over-cost https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-...) [2](https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-cost-now-forecast-top-30-billion https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-c...) [3](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-new-nuclear-reactors-could-be-the-last-built-in-the-us https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-ne...). - Nuclear (Vogtle): The total projected costs for the Vogtle expansion are nearing $35 billion for two reactors, providing a combined capacity of 2.2 GW. This translates to approximately $15.9 billion per GW. - Solar + Megapack: As previously estimated, the capital cost for solar power is around $1 billion per GW. Adding battery storage to match the continuous output capability of nuclear plants significantly affects the total cost. Tesla Megapack costs vary, but an estimate of around $200 million for 1 GWh of storage was given. The exact cost for solar plus Megapack to achieve comparable 24/7 output capacity as nuclear would depend on the required storage duration to offset the variability of solar generation. The Vogtle project's cost overruns and delays highlight the financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects. The actual cost of Vogtle significantly exceeds initial projections, emphasizing the challenge of managing complex nuclear construction projects within budget and timeline expectations. In contrast, solar and battery storage projects, such as those utilizing Tesla's Megapack, offer faster deployment times and have seen decreasing costs over time. However, to achieve a continuous power supply similar to a 1 GW nuclear plant, substantial investment in storage would be necessary, potentially narrowing the cost difference. These insights from the Vogtle project's experience underline the importance of considering not only the upfront capital costs but also the risk of cost overruns and delays in large-scale energy projects. While nuclear power offers the advantage of continuous, low-carbon electricity generation, the financial and logistical challenges evident in the Vogtle expansion may prompt utilities and policymakers to favor the more predictable costs and scalability of renewable energy and storage solutions. For future energy projects, this comparison underscores the necessity of rigorous project management, realistic budgeting, and the consideration of evolving energy technologies and market conditions.
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    The best example for Nuclear is Barakah [0]. I just so happened to do the napkin math for it compared to solar + batteries yesterday. TL;DR Barakah is 4 reactors with total of 5,6GWe and came $5B under budget at $24.4B to about $4.4B/GW which is 4x the solar case. At about $1B/GW the solar capacity factor would even out in a very sunny and cloudless location. Build time for each reactor (smartly staggered) was 8 to 7 years. You would not get batteries in the same budget at all. That said I think solar can be built much cheaper. $0.5B/GW BoS should be easily achievable with module prices alone being in the $0.15B/GW range at the moment. Jenny Chase in her book Solar Power Finance Without the Jargon [1] comes to the conclusion that both nuclear and solar+batteries end up at about $100/MWh energy price. With the energy price being equal there are really only two questions left over: 1. How fast can you build out capacity? Here the win is hands down solar. Everything is super modularized, systems/costs/buildout scale in a very linear fashion and can be stupidly parallelized. A GW of Solar PV can be physically built in months. For nuclear this is at best 7 years but more realistically 10y+. 2. What about places in higher latitudes where seasonal variation of insolation varies drastically? Nuclear would obviously be ideal as it does not care about seasons, smart people could also make use of waste heat. That said, would it still be faster to build out HV links to carry power from further away than to wait for nuclear to happen? Don't know. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant [1] https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Finance-Without-Jargon-second/dp/1800614926 https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Finance-Without-Jargon-second/d...
Arrath 3y ago
On an individual basis, I would think so. I don't know of any requirement to be hooked up to the grid. Could maybe even stretch it to condo buildings if everyone is on the same wavelength. Whole neighborhoods is probably too much of a push, though.
r00fus 3y ago
It would take a large outlay to get the solar and battery to completely disconnect. Way more than it would to simply pay the utilities what they rightfully lobbied into law. They know this. And what do apartment renters or condo owners do? Landlord/HOA isn't gonna care.

Can we escape this by using solar + a battery and disconnecting from the grid?

beretguy 3y ago

No. Nuclear is the way to go.

iknowstuff 3y ago
Nah. The construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia provides a real-world example to re-evaluate the costs associated with building nuclear power versus a combination of solar power and battery storage. The Plant Vogtle expansion involved the construction of two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, which faced significant delays and cost overruns. Initially estimated to cost around $14 billion with an expected operational start in 2016, the project's expenses ballooned to over $30 billion, more than double the original estimate. This increase does not include an additional $3.68 billion paid by the original contractor, Westinghouse, to the owners after going bankrupt, which brings the total spending to more than $34 billion. The construction started in 2009, with Unit 3 reaching "initial criticality" in 2023, marking the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction. Unit 3 is expected to come into service in mid-2023, with Unit 4 following in late 2023 or early 2024 [1](https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-arrives-7-years-late-17b-over-cost https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-...) [2](https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-cost-now-forecast-top-30-billion https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-c...) [3](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-new-nuclear-reactors-could-be-the-last-built-in-the-us https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-ne...). - Nuclear (Vogtle): The total projected costs for the Vogtle expansion are nearing $35 billion for two reactors, providing a combined capacity of 2.2 GW. This translates to approximately $15.9 billion per GW. - Solar + Megapack: As previously estimated, the capital cost for solar power is around $1 billion per GW. Adding battery storage to match the continuous output capability of nuclear plants significantly affects the total cost. Tesla Megapack costs vary, but an estimate of around $200 million for 1 GWh of storage was given. The exact cost for solar plus Megapack to achieve comparable 24/7 output capacity as nuclear would depend on the required storage duration to offset the variability of solar generation. The Vogtle project's cost overruns and delays highlight the financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects. The actual cost of Vogtle significantly exceeds initial projections, emphasizing the challenge of managing complex nuclear construction projects within budget and timeline expectations. In contrast, solar and battery storage projects, such as those utilizing Tesla's Megapack, offer faster deployment times and have seen decreasing costs over time. However, to achieve a continuous power supply similar to a 1 GW nuclear plant, substantial investment in storage would be necessary, potentially narrowing the cost difference. These insights from the Vogtle project's experience underline the importance of considering not only the upfront capital costs but also the risk of cost overruns and delays in large-scale energy projects. While nuclear power offers the advantage of continuous, low-carbon electricity generation, the financial and logistical challenges evident in the Vogtle expansion may prompt utilities and policymakers to favor the more predictable costs and scalability of renewable energy and storage solutions. For future energy projects, this comparison underscores the necessity of rigorous project management, realistic budgeting, and the consideration of evolving energy technologies and market conditions.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  The best example for Nuclear is Barakah [0]. I just so happened to do the napkin math for it compared to solar + batteries yesterday. TL;DR Barakah is 4 reactors with total of 5,6GWe and came $5B under budget at $24.4B to about $4.4B/GW which is 4x the solar case. At about $1B/GW the solar capacity factor would even out in a very sunny and cloudless location. Build time for each reactor (smartly staggered) was 8 to 7 years. You would not get batteries in the same budget at all. That said I think solar can be built much cheaper. $0.5B/GW BoS should be easily achievable with module prices alone being in the $0.15B/GW range at the moment. Jenny Chase in her book Solar Power Finance Without the Jargon [1] comes to the conclusion that both nuclear and solar+batteries end up at about $100/MWh energy price. With the energy price being equal there are really only two questions left over: 1. How fast can you build out capacity? Here the win is hands down solar. Everything is super modularized, systems/costs/buildout scale in a very linear fashion and can be stupidly parallelized. A GW of Solar PV can be physically built in months. For nuclear this is at best 7 years but more realistically 10y+. 2. What about places in higher latitudes where seasonal variation of insolation varies drastically? Nuclear would obviously be ideal as it does not care about seasons, smart people could also make use of waste heat. That said, would it still be faster to build out HV links to carry power from further away than to wait for nuclear to happen? Don't know. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant [1] https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Finance-Without-Jargon-second/dp/1800614926 https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Finance-Without-Jargon-second/d...

Arrath 3y ago

On an individual basis, I would think so. I don't know of any requirement to be hooked up to the grid. Could maybe even stretch it to condo buildings if everyone is on the same wavelength. Whole neighborhoods is probably too much of a push, though.

r00fus 3y ago

It would take a large outlay to get the solar and battery to completely disconnect. Way more than it would to simply pay the utilities what they rightfully lobbied into law. They know this. And what do apartment renters or condo owners do? Landlord/HOA isn't gonna care.