3 ms·

>As their one single data point for nuclear, they didn't pick a random sample, but instead they hand-picked the most expensive commercial nuclear power plant in

by pydry 2y ago

>As their one single data point for nuclear, they didn't pick a random sample, but instead they hand-picked the most expensive commercial nuclear power plant in the world: Vogtle-3. Citation? As far as I know they come out with new numbers every year and they dont just base it on one nuclear power plant. >And of course LCOE doesn't actually cover the full cost. It doesnt count the cost of load following, but neither the LCOE for nuclear power. Gas plants are generally used in France to supplement nuclear power when it isn't sufficient to cover their power needs or when they are taken down. And of course, 5x cheaper = 2-3x cheaper when paired with storage under conservative assumptions. >As you approach 100% renewables, the costs rise almost asymptotically If you make some really bad assumptions about how storage will be handled (e.g. assuming you need 2 weeks of lithium ion batteries) sure.

mpweiher 2y ago
[Lazard is BS based exclusively on Vogtle-3/4] >Citation? This is v16, April 2023, the most recent I could find, https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april... Page 5, Footnote (3) "Given the limited public and/or observable data set available for new-build nuclear projects and the emerging range of new nuclear generation strategies, the LCOE presented herein represents Lazard’s LCOE v15.0 results adjusted for inflation (results are based on then-estimated costs of the Vogtle Plant and are U.S.-focused)" So v15 is the same. v14 has been withdrawn. What's really funny is that this footnote has always been there, in plain sight. Yet everyone quotes the Lazard figures as if they were gospel. And if they don't name the source, it's always Lazard anyway. > [LCOE] doesnt count the cost of load following, Maybe that as well, but more significantly, it doesn't count system costs, which rise dramatically as more and more of your power generation capacity becomes intermittent. I don't see exactly where the cutoff is, but most of the industrialized nations seem to betting it's around 80%. The number will obviously vary depending on how willing you are to take on risk. Germany is currently going all-in on that, so I guess the other countries can wait and see how that experiment works out.

by pydry 2y ago

mpweiher 2y ago

[Lazard is BS based exclusively on Vogtle-3/4] >Citation? This is v16, April 2023, the most recent I could find, https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april... Page 5, Footnote (3) "Given the limited public and/or observable data set available for new-build nuclear projects and the emerging range of new nuclear generation strategies, the LCOE presented herein represents Lazard’s LCOE v15.0 results adjusted for inflation (results are based on then-estimated costs of the Vogtle Plant and are U.S.-focused)" So v15 is the same. v14 has been withdrawn. What's really funny is that this footnote has always been there, in plain sight. Yet everyone quotes the Lazard figures as if they were gospel. And if they don't name the source, it's always Lazard anyway. > [LCOE] doesnt count the cost of load following, Maybe that as well, but more significantly, it doesn't count system costs, which rise dramatically as more and more of your power generation capacity becomes intermittent. I don't see exactly where the cutoff is, but most of the industrialized nations seem to betting it's around 80%. The number will obviously vary depending on how willing you are to take on risk. Germany is currently going all-in on that, so I guess the other countries can wait and see how that experiment works out.