KeyboardWarrior + 527 October 29, 2021 Just now, Jay McKinsey said: So you caught your mistake on the nuclear costs before I could get it posted but you then mysteriously pulled a much higher solar number out of thin air to maintain your position. Solar is running at $30-40/MWh for a big project. "Power for all electricity generated from 2016 to 2064 (covering the entire refurbishment period for Units 3–6 plus the entire expected remaining post-refurbishment lifetimes of all eight Bruce Power reactors (including the two that were already refurbished)) was estimated to be approximately CA$80.6/MWh in 2017 dollars by the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Station Nope, my nuclear cost mistake was only reading about the 1.8 billion section of the plant. And yes, I did change the figure to maintain my position, because the first figure was so ridiculous and it highlighted just how much of an edge fission has over solar. Why are you quoting dollars per megawatt hour? I'm talking about installation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 29, 2021 2 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said: Nope, my nuclear cost mistake was only reading about the 1.8 billion section of the plant. And yes, I did change the figure to maintain my position, because the first figure was so ridiculous and it highlighted just how much of an edge fission has over solar. Why are you quoting dollars per megawatt hour? I'm talking about installation. Construction costs are just part of the total cost which is represented by how much the electricity costs per megawatt hour. Basic economics. Solar is half the cost of nuclear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194 October 30, 2021 16 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: Construction costs are just part of the total cost which is represented by how much the electricity costs per megawatt hour. Basic economics. Solar is half the cost of nuclear. Complete Shit. Something that only operates for at best 8 hours out of 24 is not a power source. Add in 24 hours of battery storage as part of your cost then speak up. Until then you are a LIAR Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Complete Shit. Something that only operates for at best 8 hours out of 24 is not a power source. Add in 24 hours of battery storage as part of your cost then speak up. Until then you are a LIAR Those numbers include batteries. I know you are way too dumb to understand this but batteries don't increase the cost of renewable electricity, they decrease it by shifting low value maximum production hours to highest value non production hours. The solar rate I quoted includes batteries as every large solar plant is being built with a battery. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 (edited) Falling US solar-plus-storage prices start to level as batteries supersize Levelized energy prices have dipped into the range of $30/MWh to $40/MWh, in nominal dollars, for many projects scheduled to come online in the next few years. Adjusted for inflation over the estimated 30-year lives of the projects, those contracts are in the $20/MWh to $30/MWh range, according to a recent report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, or LBNL. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/falling-us-solar-plus-storage-prices-start-to-level-as-batteries-supersize-56971432 Edited October 30, 2021 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,485 DL October 30, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said: Falling US solar-plus-storage prices start to level as batteries supersize Levelized energy prices have dipped into the range of $30/MWh to $40/MWh, in nominal dollars, for many projects scheduled to come online in the next few years. Adjusted for inflation over the estimated 30-year lives of the projects, those contracts are in the $20/MWh to $30/MWh range, according to a recent report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, or LBNL. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/falling-us-solar-plus-storage-prices-start-to-level-as-batteries-supersize-56971432 Your info is two years old, way out of date given the rapid recent surge in input prices for batteries. Why am I not surprised that you goofed up the dates again? The costs for solar are not decreasing, but facing a cost crunch going forward. Solar is facing trouble. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Major-Cost-Increase-Threatens-Solar-Power-In-2022.html "The surging cost of manufacturing materials and shipping could threaten 50 gigawatts (GW) – a staggering 56% – of the 90 GW of global utility PV developments planned for 2022, a Rystad Energy analysis shows. Commodity price inflation and supply chain bottlenecks could lead to the postponement or even cancelation of some of these projects, impacting demand and consumer pricing for solar-generated power. Driven by core component price inflation, manufacturing costs for PV modules have surged from below $0.20 per watt peak (Wp) in 2020 to between $0.26 and $0.28 per Wp in the second half of 2021 – a near 50% increase in a year. A significant driver of this surge is a more than 300% hike in the cost of polysilicon, a core component in PV manufacturing. In addition, other raw materials – silver, copper, aluminum and glass – have also climbed steadily since January 2020, increasing the pressure on module prices. "The utility solar industry is facing one of its toughest challenges just days ahead of COP26. The current bottlenecks are not expected to be relieved within the next 12 months, meaning developers and offtakers will have to decide whether to reduce their margins, delay projects or increase offtake prices to get projects to financial close," says David Dixon, senior renewables analyst at Rystad Energy." Edited October 30, 2021 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeyboardWarrior + 527 October 30, 2021 15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said: Construction costs are just part of the total cost which is represented by how much the electricity costs per megawatt hour. Basic economics. Solar is half the cost of nuclear. To match the output of the reactor, you install five times its capacity in solar (due to capacity factor). That puts the solar farm at 26 billion and the nuclear plant at 18, as I explained. Oh, and you're also going to need around 40,000 acres of land for the solar. Did I mention batteries? You'll need those too. That cost wasn't factored in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrei Moutchkine + 828 October 30, 2021 16 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said: I'd like to have a small reactor if that were practical. I was just going to say that the Bruce Generating Station, in Canada, occupies 2200 acres. A solar farm matching its output of 6.2 GW (actual output, not installed capacity) would occupy more than 15,000 acres. EDIT: It's actually a lot more than that, but you can figure it out. When USSR broke apart, about two of the atomic batteries powering remote lighthouses got nicked. One in the Arctic and another one in Georgia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator So, yes, it is practical. At least as a "trickle charger" It is a really small one that makes your spent phone automagically regain full charge after a few days of being off. Russian military radios have that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194 October 30, 2021 2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said: To match the output of the reactor, you install five times its capacity in solar (due to capacity factor). That puts the solar farm at 26 billion and the nuclear plant at 18, as I explained. Oh, and you're also going to need around 40,000 acres of land for the solar. Did I mention batteries? You'll need those too. That cost wasn't factored in. I know I made the mistake of replying to him earlier, but real question is: Why does anyone bother? He can't do kindergarten math 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said: To match the output of the reactor, you install five times its capacity in solar (due to capacity factor). That puts the solar farm at 26 billion and the nuclear plant at 18, as I explained. Oh, and you're also going to need around 40,000 acres of land for the solar. Did I mention batteries? You'll need those too. That cost wasn't factored in. I didn't know you flunked economics. You have to combine capex with opex to get the true total cost. This cost is best expressed in the cost per MWh that the plant can deliver. The cost numbers for your well amortized nuclear plant are twice that of a new solar plant with storage. I guess you didn't bother reading my other posts about storage. I will also mention that new build nuclear has increased in cost faster than the rate of inflation. Meanwhile the cost of grid batteries continue to decrease exponentially. Edited October 30, 2021 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 11 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Your info is two years old, way out of date given the rapid recent surge in input prices for batteries. Why am I not surprised that you goofed up the dates again? The costs for solar are not decreasing, but facing a cost crunch going forward. Solar is facing trouble. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Major-Cost-Increase-Threatens-Solar-Power-In-2022.html "The surging cost of manufacturing materials and shipping could threaten 50 gigawatts (GW) – a staggering 56% – of the 90 GW of global utility PV developments planned for 2022, a Rystad Energy analysis shows. Commodity price inflation and supply chain bottlenecks could lead to the postponement or even cancelation of some of these projects, impacting demand and consumer pricing for solar-generated power. Driven by core component price inflation, manufacturing costs for PV modules have surged from below $0.20 per watt peak (Wp) in 2020 to between $0.26 and $0.28 per Wp in the second half of 2021 – a near 50% increase in a year. A significant driver of this surge is a more than 300% hike in the cost of polysilicon, a core component in PV manufacturing. In addition, other raw materials – silver, copper, aluminum and glass – have also climbed steadily since January 2020, increasing the pressure on module prices. "The utility solar industry is facing one of its toughest challenges just days ahead of COP26. The current bottlenecks are not expected to be relieved within the next 12 months, meaning developers and offtakers will have to decide whether to reduce their margins, delay projects or increase offtake prices to get projects to financial close," says David Dixon, senior renewables analyst at Rystad Energy." Solar cost is back to what it was two or three years ago but battery cost has dropped dramatically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeyboardWarrior + 527 October 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: I didn't know you flunked economics. You have to combine capex with opex to get the true total cost. This cost is best expressed in the cost per MWh that the plant can deliver. The cost numbers for your well amortized nuclear plant are twice that of a new solar plant with storage. I guess you didn't bother reading my other posts about storage. Oh I know you have to combine the two... but you'll notice that we only need to look at OPEX now because I already demonstrated that initial cost is worse for solar. But do we really need to look at opex? Not quite yet, because there's something else we haven't discussed. How long does the nuke last? How long does the solar last? You just mentioned "well amortized". Yes that's exactly right. It's well amortized, and will continue to amortize because its useful life isn't ending anytime soon. Not to mention, your solar farm will begin to lose power after 20 years, and will be scrapped long before the nuke is decommissioned. If you have to scrap the farm and restart while that nuclear plant is good to go for another 30 years, opex does fuck all for solar. You reset the clock and start with another 26 billion dollar expenditure. This means that in a 60 year period, the nuclear plant still costs $18 billion, but solar jumps to $52 billion. Tell me, what does this do for cost per MWh in a 60 year period? Did I mention 50,000 acres of land? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeyboardWarrior + 527 October 30, 2021 2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: I know I made the mistake of replying to him earlier, but real question is: Why does anyone bother? He can't do kindergarten math And then he proceeds to make comments about me flunking economics. As if percent returns and total annual cost per MWh are some kind of abstract domain requiring courses in economics and linear algebra. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 Just now, KeyboardWarrior said: And then he proceeds to make comments about me flunking economics. As if percent returns and total annual cost per MWh are some kind of abstract domain requiring courses in economics and linear algebra. You were ignoring the true costs so what do you expect? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said: Oh I know you have to combine the two... but you'll notice that we only need to look at OPEX now because I already demonstrated that initial cost is worse for solar. But do we really need to look at opex? Not quite yet, because there's something else we haven't discussed. How long does the nuke last? How long does the solar last? You just mentioned "well amortized". Yes that's exactly right. It's well amortized, and will continue to amortize because its useful life isn't ending anytime soon. Not to mention, your solar farm will begin to lose power after 20 years, and will be scrapped long before the nuke is decommissioned. If you have to scrap the farm and restart while that nuclear plant is good to go for another 30 years, opex does fuck all for solar. You reset the clock and start with another 26 billion dollar expenditure. This means that in a 60 year period, the nuclear plant still costs $18 billion, but solar jumps to $52 billion. Tell me, what does this do for cost per MWh in a 60 year period? Did I mention 50,000 acres of land? You apparently can't understand that the well amortized nuke is US $100 MWh and the new solar plus storage is half that. The solar plus storage will continue to be half the cost when the plant is replaced in twenty years. The lifetime depreciation of the solar plus storage is built into the cost. Edited October 30, 2021 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeyboardWarrior + 527 October 30, 2021 Just now, Jay McKinsey said: You apparently can't understand that the well amortized nuke is US $100 MWh and the new solar plus storage is half that. The solar plus storage will continue to be half the cost when the plant is replaced in twenty years. Whoah. $100 MWh? Where the fuck did you get that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeyboardWarrior + 527 October 30, 2021 @Jay McKinsey I'd also like to add that solar is reaching its limit in terms of being cheap. Nuclear still has the whole road ahead for cost decline. It's also capable of doing more useful things, like producing massive amounts of hydrogen without stupidly expensive electrolytic cells. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeyboardWarrior + 527 October 30, 2021 On 10/28/2021 at 3:36 PM, nsdp said: These two are specific to geothermal and made since in 2008. Steam-based electric power plant operated on renewable energy Patent issuer and number us Patent # 8,281,590 Methods for enhancing efficiency of steam-based generating systems Patent issuer and number us Patent # 8,256,219h Why don't you go ahead and link me to this? I'm very curious... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 6 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said: @Jay McKinsey I'd also like to add that solar is reaching its limit in terms of being cheap. Nuclear still has the whole road ahead for cost decline. It's also capable of doing more useful things, like producing massive amounts of hydrogen without stupidly expensive electrolytic cells. HaHaHa! Nuclear has been around for 70 years and has done only one thing, increase in price. I have nothing against nuclear except its increasing costs. We don't need the hydrogen if we have the nuclear plants to make it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 (edited) The new Lazard report is out: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ Edited October 30, 2021 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 51 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said: Why don't you go ahead and link me to this? I'm very curious... He gave you the patent numbers. What more do you need? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,485 DL October 30, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said: Solar cost is back to what it was two or three years ago but battery cost has dropped dramatically. If the solar sector is shut down, they will not need batteries. Battery cost will be another casualty of the energy dysfunction. Edited October 30, 2021 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,491 October 30, 2021 Just now, Ecocharger said: Battery cost will be another casualty of the energy dysfunction. HaHaHa, battery cost isn't even close to reaching a low point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,485 DL October 30, 2021 49 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: The new Lazard report is out: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ These numbers are already out of date with the current surge of input costs. You're still running late, Jay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,485 DL October 30, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: HaHaHa, battery cost isn't even close to reaching a low point. When the solar sector implodes, they will not need batteries. And battery costs will surge if and when they ever attempt to produce en masse. Edited October 30, 2021 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members