Also note the construction timetables: 72 months vs 18 months for PV.
1. EIA 2020, Capital Cost and Performance Estimates for Utility Scale Power Generating Technologies: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost...
That's not how construction works. Past some small scale, construction cost scales quadratically or worse with size. Building a 100m tall sky scraper is not 10 times as expensive as building a 10m tall 3-story house - it is at least a hundred times more. The only reason why it's sometimes worth it is in ultra-high land-cost areas, such as Manhattan. But you'll never see sky scrapers outside city centers, because construction costs scale horribly with size, even for simple structures. Building a fusion chamber twice the size of ITER would likely be a new 50 to 100 year research project.
> You keep saying "quadrupling your construction costs" without evidence. We build oil platforms in the ocean on a regular basis. They cost some tens of millions of dollars. Existing fission reactors cost some billions of dollars. The difference from being on the ocean is evidently not the dominant cost. And then you don't have to pay for land.
Is anyone building fission reactors, or any kind of huge concrete building out in the ocean at all? Extracting oil from the ocean is many times more expensive than extracting oil on land. I have no idea why you even imagine that it's possible at all to construct a nuclear power plant out in the ocean. There is certainly no precedent for anything even close to that.
First, the power output of a fusion reactor is limited by what the first wall can withstand. Therefore, the power goes as radius^2, where as the cost goes (at least) as radius^3.
Second, the larger a fusion reactor becomes, the more parts it has, and the more reliable each individual part has to be (since there will be no redundancy in many; an leak into the vacuum chamber shuts down the reactor, for example). Reliability is expensive, so each part becomes more expensive as it is required to be more reliable.
Renewables sources are extremely redundant, so they'd scale just fine even with unexceptional per-unit reliability.
Most of your cost difference is that a commercial building isn't just taller than a house, it's also wider. Instead of taking up a third of the lot, it uses the whole thing, and then has 30 times more interior space despite being only 10 times taller. They're also built to commercial building standards which are more expensive to meet.
The costs start getting non-linear when you get into extremely tall buildings that pose special engineering challenges, but nobody is talking about building a fusion reactor into a skyscraper.
> I have no idea why you even imagine that it's possible at all to construct a nuclear power plant out in the ocean. There is certainly no precedent for anything even close to that.
Nuclear submarines survive the ocean just fine.
Yes, they are and it is a huge political issue in nearby countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
Coal is dying but it's still ~20% of US generation. The natural gas share of US generation has gone up.
> Yes, and you use odd bits of land close to consumption sites, many of which will have simultaneous use for other purposes.
Until you run out of those and then your costs increase worse than linearly because you have to start using more expensive land.
> the linearity is an advantage in that it enables mass production, and gets the benefit of the manufacturing learning curve.
Anything you're going to use for a large fraction of the power grid is going to be mass produced.
> Quadrupling your construction costs.
This is the opposite of how economies of scale work. If you make something bigger, the variable costs scale linearly and the fixed costs stay the same but are amortized over more units.
> Also, making your generators much bigger than current practise increases project risk and therfore cost.
This is no different than needing twice as many turbines to generate twice as much power. It's a variable cost, offset by you getting twice as much power without increasing your fixed costs.
> Quadrupling your construction costs again, and decreasing reliability, capacity factor and productive lifetime.
You keep saying "quadrupling your construction costs" without evidence. We build oil platforms in the ocean on a regular basis. They cost some tens of millions of dollars. Existing fission reactors cost some billions of dollars. The difference from being on the ocean is evidently not the dominant cost. And then you don't have to pay for land.
> Seawater is nasty stuff.
Many existing reactors are situated on coastlines and cooled by seawater. It's not some kind of insurmountable problem.
> It will be used for productive farmland, though.
The price of "productive farmland" compared to the price of land near a city is multiple orders of magnitude less, and high density power generation doesn't need that much land.
> Again, why aren't fission or CCGT plants being built in those places? How is fusion different?
New fission reactors largely aren't being built at all because of regulatory suppression. CCGT plants can't afford to spend fuel generating power which is then lost to long distance transmission.
> It's about time to cashflow for utility finance types, and they also tend to want a longer track record than "it worked once".
If it worked once but is now generating ten times more power per unit of investment capital than any of the alternatives then investors would be lining up, and may not even be needed because the plant operator could use revenues from selling such a large amount of electricity to build more plants with.