Thread

1. testing22321 · 1790741363 · focus · HN ↗

   Place your bets now.

   Time until first power generated, and actual final total cost.

   I’ll go 15 years and $10 Billion.

   1. rayiner · 1790770690 · focus · HN ↗

      what is the timeline and cost for 300 MW of solar plus the battery back up to make it 24/7?

      1. testing22321 · 1790775651 · focus · HN ↗

         For fun, Gemini says between 1.1 and 3.8 billion, and 3-5 years.

         That number will decrease every month too.

         1. borodi · 1790777725 · focus · HN ↗

            The gemini solar project in Nevada is 700 MW power + 4 hours of batteries at 380MW and cost 1.9 billion. Took 2 years and that was in 2022

            1. rayiner · 1790777838 · focus · HN ↗

               Is 4 hours of battery an equivalent comparison to a nuclear plant?

               1. borodi · 1790778737 · focus · HN ↗

                  I'm not anti nuclear or anything like that. It's just the financial comparison one has to make. Currently competing with solar + batteries is hard since unlike SMRs which hypothetically will get cheaper, they are getting cheaper at a quick rate and don't have the history of cost overruns that nuclear does.

                  1. rayiner · 1790784425 · focus · HN ↗

                     I understand. My point simply is that the relevant price comparison is nuclear versus solar + enough batteries to make the solar plant equivalent to a nuclear plant. The battery system is the lynchpin of efforts to substitute solar for nuclear, and the cost/timeline of that should be factored in. But usually we just see an apples-to-oranges comparison of nuclear by itself and solar by itself.
               2. boelboel · 1790781146 · focus · HN ↗

                  Somewhere like Arizona/Nevada I would say it's getting pretty equivalent, In PNW or midwest region it's not equivalent at all.
               3. vablings · 1790786787 · focus · HN ↗

                  4 hours at full tilt is pretty good, assuming that for the same volume you can store double the power in the next 15 years that means that you can replace those cells at end of service life and end up with 8 years ect.
            2. mpweiher · 1790850723 · focus · HN ↗

               When looking at costs, you have to also take into account the lifetime of the plants.

               The current US plants are all getting extensions to 80 years of operation, and experts see no problems with going to 100.

               How many times do you have to fully replace the panels in that timeframe?

               How many times the batteries?

               And what about seasonal storage?

               1. triceratops · 1790873783 · focus · HN ↗

                  > How many times do you have to fully replace the panels in that timeframe?

                  3 times, assuming current panel lifetimes. The panels will be even cheaper by then and will likely be robotically installed.

                  > How many times the batteries?

                  Maybe 4 times? Same as the panels; they'll be cheaper and easier to replace.

                  Maintaining and upgrading nuclear plants also has a cost. They don't last 100 years for free.

                  > And what about seasonal storage?

                  Might be unnecessary with enough overbuilding and grid interconnections. Or there might be cheaper storage technologies. Or batteries might become cheap enough that fewer duty cycles for season storage become economical.

               2. Timon3 · 1790881794 · focus · HN ↗

                  > How many times do you have to fully replace the panels in that timeframe?

                  You don't have to replace them. After 30 years the panels will still be producing >80% of their initial output.

                  Of course it might be economical to replace them with newer panels, since solar tech is getting better every year. 30 years ago solar cost roughly $8/W of peak capacity (adjusted for inflation), and today were somewhere around $0.1 to $0.3 per watt. Assuming $0.25, that's a 32x increase.

                  Imagine in 30 years we replace them with solar panels 32x as cost-effective as today's (and same for batteries, whatever the factor might be). How competitive does the nuclear plant look?

      2. Timon3 · 1790826402 · focus · HN ↗

         This reactor isn't going to provide 300 MW 24/7, so why is that a fair benchmark?
      3. myrmidon · 1790860019 · focus · HN ↗

         For 1.2GW in panels and 20GWh of batteries you'd currently pay about a billion for the panels and 2-3 billion for the batteries (price for a turn-key solution, not just cells). Assumptions:

         - 25% capacity factor for panels

         - 3 days of storage (at 300MW)

         - $120/kWh for storage

         - $1/W (peak) for panels

         I'd argue that such a setup is a big upgrade over the reactor since you have much higher peak power; you basically get more dispatchability at a comparable capacity factor (90%-ish). I suspect maintenance to be cheaper as well.

         But an actual solar setup would probably install more panels and less storage (giving you cheaper power at a lower capacity factor).

         Edit: The problem in practice for the nuclear reactor is that it has to be competitive with almost the panels alone, because otherwise your consumers are just gonna go "I wont buy nuclear energy 24/7, I'll just use much cheaper solar electricity whenever the sun shines, pay maybe for a few hours of batteries and fall back to gas when I really need to (very cheap per peak MW, but not per MWh)".

         If you want to be fully paid for constant power output, you have to be fully competitive at all times, not just when the sun is down.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.