Thread

1. 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. mpweiher · 1790850855 · focus · HN ↗

      You need to take into account

      a) backup/firming, both day/night and seasonal.

      b) lifetime of plant.

      c) land use.

      1. [deleted] · 1790853438 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

      2. [deleted] · 1790854588 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

      3. [deleted] · 1790927889 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

      4. ViewTrick1002 · 1790927957 · focus · HN ↗

         That’s exactly why I prefer whole-system modelling over simple LCOE comparisons. Backup, seasonal balancing, transmission, lifetime and integration costs all need to be accounted for.

         What I find interesting is that the system studies I’ve been looking at, from Australia to Denmark and Finland, still don’t find new nuclear improving the least-cost outcome.

         And they’re not assuming another Vogtle, Flamanville or Hinkley. They generally give nuclear much more optimistic NOAK or adjusted future costs.

         So I’m curious: what system-cost study are you relying on that reaches the opposite conclusion?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.