this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
438 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

72360 readers
3096 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Some key insights from the article:

Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

As others have said this is for Las Vegas which receives wayyy more sun than the average place. But the other misleading part is they looked at 20 years which is close to the life cycle for solar/batteries and not even half the life of nuclear

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

But the other misleading part is they looked at 20 years which is close to the life cycle for solar/batteries and not even half the life of nuclear

I think Lazard's LCOE methodology looks at the entire life cycle of the power plant, specific to that power plant. So they amortize solar startup/decommissioning costs across the 20 year life cycle of solar, but when calculating LCOE for nuclear, they spread the costs across the 80 year life cycle of a nuclear plant.

Nuclear is just really, really expensive. Even if plants required no operating costs, the up front costs are so high that it represents a significant portion of the overall operating costs for any given year.

The Vogtle debacle in Georgia cost $35 billion to add ~~2 MW~~ 2GW (edit to fix error) of capacity. They're now projecting that over the entire 75 year lifespan the cost of the electricity will come out to be about $0.17 to $0.18 per kilowatt hour.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Vogtle’s numbers are incredibly biased considering they made an entire design and then had to redo it halfway through that’s not a realistic cost that can be expected for future projects. We also have vogtles design be approved now so that new plants can be built for a fraction of the cost. Also where did you see they did amortization of solar?

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

Also where did you see they did amortization of solar?

I'm just familiar with Lazard's LCOE methodology. The linked paper talks about LCOE, so that's just how that particular cost analysis works.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

2gw, but yes, before any operational/maintenance costs that is $17.5/watt. Solar is under $1/watt, and sunny AF.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

solar today is warranteed for 30 years. No reason to replace before 60 years compared to adding more beside it.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Batteries and panels degrade over time. So if you are trying to maintain a specific amount of power you would need to keep investing in order to maintain the same amount of power generation

[–] GreenCrunch@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I mean there are ongoing costs with any form of power generation. Obviously there's fuel costs for most, but even other renewables have maintenance costs. You'll also need to keep investing anyway as power demands increase over time. So newer solar installations eventually replace the old.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Yes, what I am saying is that cost is being shown for nuclear and not shown for solar due to using an intentionally small window of time. It’s like comparing an ICE to an EV and talking about the refueling costs of gas and treating electricity like it’s free.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

From the dot graph, it implies that las Vegas is one of the worse options? And Birmingham is somehow best?

Not sure I'm reading that right?

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

My understanding of that graph is how do you flatten peak energy demands, Birmingham is flat and throughout the year because you have some parts of the year where you need very little battery capacity and other parts where you need a lot. Las Vegas basically always needs a lot because of how hot it gets they end up with huge amounts of peak energy usage

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Fair point but nuclear will probably always have the disadvantage of initial cost and time to market. It's a huge risk for investors and public officials.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That is the main criticism of nuclear, it should hopefully get better with Westinghouse’s AP1000 receiving full approval and being built all across China so as long as we continue to use the same design it can start to be mass produced instead of making all the parts as one offs that are much more expensive and time consuming

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Vogtle added 2 AP1000 reactors for $35 billion. Future deployments might be cheaper, but there's a long way to go before it can compete with pretty much any other type of power generation.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

They had to switch halfway through which is what added the cost that’s not a realistic cost per reactor

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, current projections are still for the next two AP1000s at Vogtle to be something like $10 billion. That's just not cost competitive with solar/wind. And it's also not very realistic to assume that there won't be cost overruns on the next one, either. Complex engineering projects tend to run over.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Next two? After you mentioned it I tried googling and can’t find anything about current projections for new AP1000s at vogtle.