Comment by mlyle
9 hours ago
> Now you want to add 10% of $190/MWh to the cost base. So instead of $50/MWh we end up with $65/MWh.
Yes-- that's how it works if we assume none of the benefits I'm talking about and assume that storage is free. (Of course, storage has an estimated incremental LCOE similar to the entire cost of nuclear, and a small amount of stable generation can mean much less storage).
> For this case Lazard uses $122 - 313/MWh storage.
There you go; for a small share of nuclear, you can just get the power later in the day for $100-250/MWh, versus paying $122-313/MWh. (And this is the intraday benefit, not counting the interday benefits).
The downside is that you need to amortize the capital cost for the nuclear even when you have a surplus of electricity. So you wouldn't want too much of it.
So it's really more like you pay nuclear's cost * 1.5 for the 2/3rds of the day when you would be tapping storage, and you get additional free power when renewables are producing. $100-250 times 1.5 is similar to 122-313 plus the cost of original renewable generation, but there are the mentioned ancillary benefits, too.
We need to roughly double grid size, and unfortunately a whole lot of the increment wants to be closer to 24/7 loads than current demand (industrial, heating, charging of vehicle batteries, etc-- and if we do any power2gas, that counts in a big way).
I think you've not heard the argument, so I'm bailing out.
> a small amount of stable generation can mean much less storage
Which does not pencil out in the studies made on the topic. Which you keep ignoring. Because nuclear power itself needs loads of flexibility to meet a grid load over the course of days and seasons.
> There you go; for a small share of nuclear, you can just get the power later in the day for $100-250/MWh, versus paying $122-313/MWh. (And this is the intraday benefit, not counting the interday benefits).
Ahh sorry. I love how you pounced on a figure you would know to be erroneous if you had knowledge on the topic. But you desperately want to paint renewables as impossible.
The $122-313 figure is of course per kWh when installed. Leading to cycle costs in the cents. Not tens of cents like "$122 - 313/MWh storage" would have you believe.
Which in China today is down to $52/kWh. I see you didn't dare calculating the cycle cost for those batteries. I suppose because you that would invalidate your nuclear cultism.
> 24/7 loads than current demand (industrial, heating, charging of vehicle batteries, etc).
You truly don't comprehend how the grid works? Charging EVs is a 24/7 load when you need to paint nuclear power as the solution?
The people with EVs and hourly contracts are literally the ones watching the electricity prices like the weather and timing their charging to perfect.
It is by definition the perfect load to match a renewable grid.
And you still ignore the timescales involved. I suppose you don't have an answer.
Again: Do tell me what relevancy a new built nuclear plant will have when it comes online in 2045?
Will we just keep polluting for decades while waiting on this nuclear plant? Is that what you propose?
Cycle costs aren't a fair metric unless/until we know what refurbishment really costs.
Given that we amortize other bits of electrical infrastructure over 30-40 years, amortizing a new bit over 20 years when A) it has a wear component inside, and B) we don't have 40 years of experience with it seems fair.
> Will we just keep polluting for decades while waiting on this nuclear plant? Is that what you propose?
Right now our intercept involves us polluting for decades beyond that nuclear power showing up. I propose doing more of everything low-carbon, including more nuclear.
> I love how you pounced on a figure
I said $100-200 13 hours ago. You said a different, similar number, so I used your number.
> The people with EVs and hourly contracts are literally the ones watching the electricity prices like the weather and timing their charging to perfect.
Most charging happens overnight. Lots of transport loads will be forced to charge overnight, too. Yes, they have some flexibility to dispatch load, but not enough to substantially hold up a truck for cheaper electricity or shift the time in the day when it is driving.
My big issue talking to you: you're engaging in a lot of hyperbole, don't really seem to be responding to my arguments, and you're continually being abrasive:
> I suppose you don't have an answer.
> when you need to paint
> Ahh sorry. I love how you
> But you desperately want
> if you had knowledge on the topic.
I don't think I'm talking to you like that (if I am, please point it out so that I can stop). If your objective is to just chase me away by making discussion unpleasant, you're having some success.
Why should we care what refurbishment costs? We know the installation cost. We know the cycle life as per the chosen depth of discharge. We also know the cost of capital.
What we are seeing today is many renewable projects built 20 years ago nearing the of their expected economic life as per their financing are seeing life extensions. They keep producing a valuable product and their loans are paid off making it pure profit.
Renewables don't stop working after 20 years. Just like old nuclear plants don't stop working after 20 years.
Nuclear powers problem is that it takes 20 years to get built. Then it needs to pay off its loans, and recent plants have hade insanely expensive 40 year PPAs attached to them.
Meaning for a project started today we will be paying for the boondoggle until 2085.
Why do you want to make us poorer by wasting money?
> Right now our intercept involves us polluting for decades beyond that nuclear power showing up. I propose doing more of everything low-carbon, including more nuclear.
Why waste money on the option costing 5-10x as much per kWh decarbonized if you truly care about decarbonization?
> Most charging happens overnight. Lots of transport loads will be forced to charge overnight, too. Yes, they have some flexibility to dispatch load, but not enough to substantially hold up a truck for cheaper electricity or shift the time in the day when it is driving.
Until you know, charging wherever you can stop essentially becomes standard? Or just let your home battery charge the car from your daytime rooftop solar?
With battery costs coming down to $50-100/kWh adding a sizeable battery to a house is a trivial cost. We are starting to enter an economic reality where the work done by professional installers is more expensive than the battery itself.
BEV transport and public transport is generally modeled as an inflexible load. But all in all their demand is quite small compared to the rest of society.
In California storage has already brought down fossil gas usage by 43%. But you say we should instead have kept the fossil gas, invested in nuclear power and waited until the 2040s.
It literally does not make sense to waste money on a dead-end technology like nuclear power.
9 replies →
> literally the ones watching the electricity prices like the weather and timing their charging to perfect.
A critic will read that and think "most people won't do that." Except it's really easy. You just tell the car "make sure you're charged by 7AM", and the car will do the right thing.
I hope you got something out of your excellent comments since you're talking to somebody who isn't listening, and the story is long past off the front page.
> You just tell the car "make sure you're charged by 7AM", and the car will do the right thing.
If we end up with a surplus of nighttime electricity, sure.
But if my car needs to be charged sometime from 8PM to 6AM, it's going to be some mix of nuclear, storage, and wind that goes in, and one cannot reasonably build enough wind to cover more than doubled nighttime use.
> I hope you got something out of your excellent comments since you're talking to somebody who isn't listening,
I'm listening, and I don't understand why my counter-commenter has to call names and call people out like that -- or why you do.
1 reply →