Re:China to supercharge uranium race with 150 new nuclear re...
by bryanlarsen on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @07:13AM
(#29173807)
My main objection against nuclear is the time scale. I'll happily endorse any nuclear project that comes online before 2030. Even if solar/wind is more expensive than nuclear (and I don't believe they are unless the 150 plants for $500B number is achievable), it's still better simply because they can come online quickly.
People significantly overestimate the amount of batteries that a solar+battery project requires. All you need is enough batteries to handle a single night (and demand is low at night), and enough overcapacity to handle a moderately cloudy day. That'll get you above nuclear's 90% capacity factor.
Those batteries only add $20/MWh to the project. https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-...
Re:China to supercharge uranium race with 150 new nuclear re...
by bryanlarsen on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @06:29AM
(#29173525)
CSP solar in California is 33%.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343184782_Capacity_...
33% capacity factor is unheard of, US is around 25%, and even that is higher than most of the world. Not even excellent desert states in the US don't break 30% https://www.statista.com/statistics/1019796/solar-pv-capacit...
Currently the West has massively inflated prices because there is no economy of scale. A planned economy + economies of scale might just pull it off. Especially if they're going to build the nuclear plants in factories, like the west is trying to do now. We'll see.
I'm personally rooting for all the technologies, except coal. Even gas is good as a temporary measure - it allows us to get off coal faster.