Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by pydry | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

pydry

advanced nuclear - $6000/kW (2019)[9]

gas/oil combined cycle power plant - $1000/kW (2019)[9]

combustion turbine - $710/kW (2020)[9]

onshore wind - $1600/kW (2019)[9]

offshore wind - $6500/kW (2019)[9]

solar PV (fixed) - $1060/kW (utility),[10] $1800/kW (2019)[9]

solar PV (tracking)- $1130/kW (utility)[10] $2000/kW (2019)[9]

battery storage power - $1380/kW (2020)[9]

conventional hydropower - $2752/kW (2020)[9]

geothermal - $2800/kW (2019)[9]

coal (with SO2 and NOx controls)- $3500–3800/kW[11]

fuel cells - $7200/kW (2019)[9]

-- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourc...

It sure is expensive for something so efficient.

View on HN

You copied from the "Capital Costs" section of your link [0] and apparently didn't bother to read the rest of the document.

You shouldn't compare energy sources based on capital costs alone. For that, your link references LCOE [1], which is essentially (total cost) / (total energy produced).

Your link further has a "Global Studies" section [2], which references numerous studies that compare LCOE by power source, worldwide, and a "Regional Studies" section [3] which does the same for specific regions.

If you look at the relevant sections from your own link instead of cherrypicking irrelevant data that suit your position, you'll see that nuclear isn't so clearly uncompetitive. Whether it's cost-effective or not seems fairly contentious.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

LCOE by Lazard:

Solar : $36 / MwH

Onshore wind : $40 / MwH

Nuclear : $164 / MwH

It's pretty much in line with the capital costs.

If you look at the figures provided by the Nuclear Energy Agency nuclear is very competitive though.

You really need to compare costs on the basis of energy (kWh) produced, not power (kW) rating. It's mostly irrelevant to compare on the basis of kW/MW ratings without also considering load factors.

That said, solar and wind are still considerably cheaper than nuclear when the per-MWh prices are compared. Large (multi GW) off-shore wind farms are now being contracted in Europe for less than half the cost of new-build nuclear.

how much is a kW of solar at night?

looks like $2,440 if you add battery to solar.

still quite a bit below $6,000

And that’s current battery prices, which are declining rapidly with manufacturing capacity rapidly increasing to support EV production.

Batteries will get cheaper faster than nuclear, and can be built faster with very little regulatory requirements.

Again, recycling. What's the lifecycle of a solar panel, and the aforementioned batteries. 10 years? 20? What do we do with millions of them then?

Solar PV modules are recyclable after their 25-35 year lifetime. Same for batteries. No long term storage repositories, no reprocessing or proliferation concerns (unlike nuclear). Metals and glass in, metals and glass out.

I'd appreciate some serious links on costs and current state of the industry, not anecdotal and wishful thinking "should be possible".

https://iea-pvps.org/key-topics/human-health-risk-assessment...

Specifically, this report presents an analysis of potential human health risks associated with non-sanitary landfill disposal for three PV technologies, focusing on release of the highest-prioritized chemical element for each: lead (Pb) in crystalline-silicon (c-Si) PV modules, cadmium (Cd) in thin film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV modules, and selenium (Se) in thin film copper indium selenide (CIS) PV modules. The prioritization of these chemical elements for analysis is based on stakeholder interest. Because the methodology is chemical-specific, the risk assessment results for these chemicals cannot be directly generalized to other chemicals, although the risk assessment methodology can be applied to other chemicals. If the chemicals chosen are indeed the ones presenting greatest risk, then the results herein should represent the upper bound of health risk from exposure to a single constituent.

If you’re comparing PV materials to nuclear waste, a reasonable conversation can’t be had. You’re grasping at straws to support a failed technology.

Panels are safely recycled today: https://www.veolia.com/en/newsroom/news/recycling-photovolta...

As are batteries: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/batteries-storage/lithiumio...

As are wind turbines: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ge-announces-first-us-wind-...

You’re grasping at straws to support a failed technology.

Tell that to the Finns or French.

You're linking me "can do" articles. The industry itself states there's not enough data:

https://iea-pvps.org/key-topics/lci-of-current-european-pv-r...

Solar photovoltaic (PV) installations must be properly dismantled and any waste treated and disposed at the end of project life. However, because most of the world’s nearly 400 GW of PV systems have been built in the past decade – each expected to operate for between 20 and 30 years – current PV module waste volumes do not yet justify widespread operation of PV recycling facilities.

It is indeed an unfair comparison, because there's not enough data to compare.

I don't see anywhere where the cost of all of this is factored into solar/wind. Neither can you, because probably no one knows at this point.

I wish solar + battery works on snowy winter.

Wind energy is still a thing.

Infinite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com