Thread

NRC issues first U.S. construction permit for a BWRX-300 small modular reactor

151 points · 191 comments · papa-whisky

idontwantthis · 1790784321 · focus · HN ↗
A nuclear power plant is essentially a coal power plant with free fuel. Today, if you literally built a coal power plant with free fuel it would not be cheaper than solar. My question: If you built a small modular coal power plant, would that be cheaper than solar? It necessarily has to be cheaper than nuclear.
1. BugsJustFindMe · 1790797103 · focus · HN ↗
  The comparison to solar is incomplete, because nuclear and coal aren't sunlight-dependent. You need to compare solar + energy storage. I know that solar generation is cheaper. Is it still cheaper with storage?
  1. dalyons · 1790802048 · focus · HN ↗
    the answer to your question is a quick google away, plenty of studies. the answer is roughly;
    yes solar+storage is cheaper than new coal
    maybe solar+storage is cheaper than existing coal, they are similar, depends where you are
    yes solar+storage is (much) cheaper than new nukes
    no solar+storage is cheaper than old paid off nukes
  2. iknowstuff · 1790870528 · focus · HN ↗
    Nuclear costs $16B/GW
    Solar $1B/GW. $1B buys 5GWh of storage.
    You do the math

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.