> no such operating cost, besides dusting off the panels once in a while, and inspecting and replacing failed units.
These things add up.
Here's a study by NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), which is very unlikely to be biased against solar [1]. On page 31 they estimate the annual costs O&M (operating and maintenance) costs for a 10 MW solar plant at $144k. That comes at $14 MM/GW, or about $350 MM over a lifetime of 25 years.
Just so we're clear, I read Austin Vernon's piece about why nukes cannot be economical [2]. It's just not convincing. He compares the thermal part of a nuke with a coal power plant. A coal power plant is much more complex, since it needs to move around millions of tons of coal every year. A better comparison is with natural gas power plants.
Luckily, we can check the EIE study I liked to before [3]. I normalize all the costs to 1 GW.
Coal (no CO2 capture): $3.7 BN
Natural Gas (no CO2 caputure): $0.7 BN (yes, you read that right, it's on page 77)
Fuel cells: $6.7 BN
Nuclear: $6 BN
Geothermal: $2.5 BN
Hydro: $5.3 BN
Offshore wind: $1.2 BN
Onshore wind: $1.7 BN
Solar: $1.3 BN
So, Austin Vernon's argument that turbines can't be competitive because we've had coal power plants for hundreds of years is simply flawed. Natural gas power plants can be extremely competitive from the CAPEX point of view (of course, they burn gas that costs money, so overall they are not that economical compared to solar). But if you pair the turbine from a state of the art natgas power plant with the steam coming from an inexpensive SMR, there's no reason to not be competitive.
These things add up.
Here's a study by NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), which is very unlikely to be biased against solar [1]. On page 31 they estimate the annual costs O&M (operating and maintenance) costs for a 10 MW solar plant at $144k. That comes at $14 MM/GW, or about $350 MM over a lifetime of 25 years.
Just so we're clear, I read Austin Vernon's piece about why nukes cannot be economical [2]. It's just not convincing. He compares the thermal part of a nuke with a coal power plant. A coal power plant is much more complex, since it needs to move around millions of tons of coal every year. A better comparison is with natural gas power plants.
Luckily, we can check the EIE study I liked to before [3]. I normalize all the costs to 1 GW.
Coal (no CO2 capture): $3.7 BN
Natural Gas (no CO2 caputure): $0.7 BN (yes, you read that right, it's on page 77)
Fuel cells: $6.7 BN
Nuclear: $6 BN
Geothermal: $2.5 BN
Hydro: $5.3 BN
Offshore wind: $1.2 BN
Onshore wind: $1.7 BN
Solar: $1.3 BN
So, Austin Vernon's argument that turbines can't be competitive because we've had coal power plants for hundreds of years is simply flawed. Natural gas power plants can be extremely competitive from the CAPEX point of view (of course, they burn gas that costs money, so overall they are not that economical compared to solar). But if you pair the turbine from a state of the art natgas power plant with the steam coming from an inexpensive SMR, there's no reason to not be competitive.
[1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74840.pdf
[2] https://austinvernon.site/blog/nuclear.html
[3] https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost...