Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumWhy are wind and solar being deployed faster than nuclear?
Its a simple fact that wind and solar farms are being completed at an increasing rate, while nuclear plants are not.
International Energy Agency | World Energy Outlook 2024
Why? Because wind and solar can be deployed more quickly, and are more cost effective than nuclear power. This table compares the costs of a few different technologies. I have edited it to focus on the United States, how much does it cost to build a new plant (in terms of $/kW) and what is the ultimate cost (in dollars) of producing a megawatt-hour of electricity using each technology.
Notes: O&M = operation and maintenance; LCOE = levelised cost of electricity; VALCOE = value-adjusted LCOE; kW = kilowatt; MWh = megawatt-hour; CCGT = combined-cycle gas turbine; n.a. = not applicable. Cost components, LCOE and VALCOE figures are rounded. Lower values for VALCOE indicate improved competitiveness.
Sources: IEA analysis; IRENA (2024).
International Energy Agency | World Energy Outlook 2024
OAITW r.2.0
(28,711 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(21,021 posts)Assuming a kilowatt-hour of electricity has a constant sales price, solar and wind are more profitable than nuclear power, because they cost less to produce.
OAITW r.2.0
(28,711 posts)There may be a future for nuclear with mini-reactors, but it's not deployable yet.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,021 posts)Perhaps I was unclear.
OAITW r.2.0
(28,711 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(21,021 posts)With lower upfront costs, and faster deployment times that means the profits come in faster as well.
duncang
(3,729 posts)You can easily do copy cat installations. Need a little more power add more turbines and batteries as needed. Doing baby steps. Want to add a nuclear power plant and that takes a lot of commitment.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,021 posts)PV panels are mass produced in factories, then, you can deploy them on a single home, or as part of a large solar farm." The size of the farms can vary tremendously, depending on available space. In addition, while its nice to have a source of water to wash off solar panels now and again, a nuclear plant needs to be built by a significant body of water, to drive its steam turbines.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,021 posts)In a drought (like most of the US is currently experiencing) the water needed for a nuclear plant may be in short supply.
moniss
(6,155 posts)cost of construction. The more expensive the project the more ways there are to scam on a project and the bigger the potential reward. Many times the crooked GQP will turn their back on a simple solution or cheap program in favor of one that's more complex, higher cost and more likely to generate more money to be loose for political donations.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,021 posts)However, I was trying to focus on the straightforward financial logic. Wind and solar produce greater profits, faster than nuclear.
Here in New York, a significant portion of our power is generated using hydro (hello Niagara Falls!) and nuclear, but Im signed up with a commercial outfit that offers a flat discount of 10% on power generated by their solar farms. Its amazing how many people I talk to who think there must be a catch."
moniss
(6,155 posts)just add a tangential point. The various calculations and comparisons also sometimes do not include entire lifetime costs. That can be where the cost per kW can go off the charts because of accounting for nuclear waste storage, transportation, monitoring, clean-up etc.
Just think of how high the dollars per kW will be for Fukishima.
mopinko
(71,998 posts)or small wind.
i cant put a nuke plant on my roof, but i sure can and have put solar up there.
and i reap the rewards.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,021 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2024, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Because not everyone can put solar on their roofs.
If I recall correctly, utility solar is way ahead of residential solar as far as kWhs generated nationwide (but definitely in New York.)