3 ms·

> nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper Production costs: renewables are way cheaper than nuclear ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lc

> nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper Production costs: renewables are way cheaper than nuclear ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and this is not a new trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

Moldoteck 2y ago
it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of it could be covered with wind but it'll still be a lot. What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? Needless to say that this overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time when most of day consumption will be covered, storage too - if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies for companies to build more of the stuff to get back their investment
- natmaka 2y ago
  'Advanced nuclear' neglects the last developments (the Vogtle nuclear plant project hugely over-budget and late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... , cancelled plans (Montagorda, V. C. Summer, River Band, Callaway...). Even the newest pipe dream in town (SMR) already had its first rebuff ( https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-nuclear-reactor-plant-in-the-us-has-been-canceled/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-... ). Last but not least... there is no running project. Therefore writing "US nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from ~100 GW in 2024 to ~300 GW by 2050." in a title is for sure easy, however there is now sign of such potential to become anything else. As long as the source is not consuming any fuel nor producing much waste any EROI greater than one seems OK to me. > why they assume 4h storage? AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). > What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale, as this is useful whatever the type of sources (even if it is mainly nuclear), then to benefit from diverses wind (or even solar) regimes. > overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time Not with an electric fleet of vehicles, to begin with. Green hydrogen will also absorb part of it (for industrial applications, electric backup...). > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ).
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    you sure it neglects vogtle? > AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). - lol, kinda interesting assumptions, especially considering that it'll still imply additional costs > AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale - lol, at such scales that sounds as a bigger pipedream than cheap h2 emission free generation > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies > This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ). This will kill basically any peaker plant be that fossil, hydro or nuclear. That's kinda the point. With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity of both production, peaker and storage that'll be rarely used. No matter the technology - any of it will get extremely expensive the higher the renewable share will get. Even Norway starts facing similar problems since they import cheap renewable in peak production, meaning their hydro is earning less
    - natmaka 2y ago
      > you sure it neglects vogtle? No, your "Advanced Nuclear - Pathways to Commercial Liftoff" plays the usual "we benefit from failures because we learn" card, and concludes with promises "The next AP1000s would also realize substantial cost reductions". This is not IMHO solid, especially given well-known pertinent experience (about gaining from experience!), such as https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... V2G seems solid to me and to most experts (even France seriously studies it!). The continental scale ('copper plate') is an official objective in many continents, and already actively and for quite a while pursued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmission_System_Operators_for_Electricity#Geographical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmissi... > With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity Not at continental level ( https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... )
      - Moldoteck 2y ago
        based on the fact unit 4 proved there's positive learning curve (30% faster & cheaper than unit 3) they extrapolated this so it seems pretty normal, much more believable than a continental scale grid that'll not need much overcapacity and storage, including because of v2g, that's a pipedream of a solution. Just think of dunkelflaute that'll affect a lot of northern countries, think how much overcapacity the other members will need to have to cover it.

Moldoteck 2y ago

it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of it could be covered with wind but it'll still be a lot. What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? Needless to say that this overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time when most of day consumption will be covered, storage too - if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies for companies to build more of the stuff to get back their investment

natmaka 2y ago
'Advanced nuclear' neglects the last developments (the Vogtle nuclear plant project hugely over-budget and late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... , cancelled plans (Montagorda, V. C. Summer, River Band, Callaway...). Even the newest pipe dream in town (SMR) already had its first rebuff ( https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-nuclear-reactor-plant-in-the-us-has-been-canceled/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-... ). Last but not least... there is no running project. Therefore writing "US nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from ~100 GW in 2024 to ~300 GW by 2050." in a title is for sure easy, however there is now sign of such potential to become anything else. As long as the source is not consuming any fuel nor producing much waste any EROI greater than one seems OK to me. > why they assume 4h storage? AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). > What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale, as this is useful whatever the type of sources (even if it is mainly nuclear), then to benefit from diverses wind (or even solar) regimes. > overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time Not with an electric fleet of vehicles, to begin with. Green hydrogen will also absorb part of it (for industrial applications, electric backup...). > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ).
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  you sure it neglects vogtle? > AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). - lol, kinda interesting assumptions, especially considering that it'll still imply additional costs > AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale - lol, at such scales that sounds as a bigger pipedream than cheap h2 emission free generation > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies > This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ). This will kill basically any peaker plant be that fossil, hydro or nuclear. That's kinda the point. With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity of both production, peaker and storage that'll be rarely used. No matter the technology - any of it will get extremely expensive the higher the renewable share will get. Even Norway starts facing similar problems since they import cheap renewable in peak production, meaning their hydro is earning less
  - natmaka 2y ago
    > you sure it neglects vogtle? No, your "Advanced Nuclear - Pathways to Commercial Liftoff" plays the usual "we benefit from failures because we learn" card, and concludes with promises "The next AP1000s would also realize substantial cost reductions". This is not IMHO solid, especially given well-known pertinent experience (about gaining from experience!), such as https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... V2G seems solid to me and to most experts (even France seriously studies it!). The continental scale ('copper plate') is an official objective in many continents, and already actively and for quite a while pursued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmission_System_Operators_for_Electricity#Geographical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmissi... > With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity Not at continental level ( https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... )
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      based on the fact unit 4 proved there's positive learning curve (30% faster & cheaper than unit 3) they extrapolated this so it seems pretty normal, much more believable than a continental scale grid that'll not need much overcapacity and storage, including because of v2g, that's a pipedream of a solution. Just think of dunkelflaute that'll affect a lot of northern countries, think how much overcapacity the other members will need to have to cover it.