Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PurpleDancer t1_jdakrqb wrote

Reply to comment by GRADIUSIC_CYBER in Maine's Energy future by mainething

The numbers seem to show that solar is cheaper per kwh

Edit: ok downvotes, do you think I'm just making this up?

This wikipedia page captures numerous methods of measuring it and you can see the variety of results. There's only one study where solar is considered more expensive than nuclear (ipcc 2014 which was before solar panel prices dropped like a stone) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Levelized cost of energy seems to be the common metric https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

−1

GRADIUSIC_CYBER t1_jdalsqc wrote

Covering the interstate with solar panels doesn't really seem feasible, and I doubt there's going to be enough people in support of cutting down more trees to put in solar. At the moment solar makes the most sense for people putting it on their roof, assuming they have good location / roof angle and the $$$ to install.

Maybe we could generate clean electricity elsewhere where it's more practical and just bring the power in with new transmission lines /s

Don't underestimate how much some people hate change: Displeasure with solar projects at Interstate 95 interchanges prompts Augusta officials to seek additional regulations

6

Rippedyanu1 t1_jdb9y8a wrote

They show that when you hide the cost of infrastructure upgrades and new power stations, and regular replacement.

2

snowswolfxiii t1_jdcj3zj wrote

Gonna need to ask you to post those number, chief.

1

PurpleDancer t1_jdcldbp wrote

This wikipedia page captures numerous methods of measuring it and you can see the variety of results. There's only one study where solar is considered more expensive than nuclear (ipcc 2014 which was before solar panel prices dropped like a stone) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Levelized cost of energy seems to be the common metric https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

2

snowswolfxiii t1_jdcnn89 wrote

I think the reason you're getting downvoted is that 'the numbers' don't really conclude anything. Literally the moment you read beyond the numbers, it becomes apparent that it's all just on-paper theory and doesn't mean anything.

Did you read the massive disclaimer?

>Real life costs can diverge significantly from those estimates.

​

>Olkiluoto block 3, which achieved first criticality in late 2021 had an overnight cost to the construction consortium (the utility paid a fixed price agreed to when the deal was signed of only 3.2 billion euros) of €8.5 billion and a net electricity capacity of 1.6 gigawatt or €5310 per kilowatt of capacity.[16] Meanwhile Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Canada had an overnight cost of CA$5.117 billion for a net electric capacity of 3512 Megawatts or CA$1,457 per Kilowatt of capacity. The oft cited figure of CA$14.319 billion - which works out to CA$4,077 per kilowatt of capacity - includes interest (a particularly high cost in this case as the utility had to borrow at market rates and had to absorb the cost of delays in construction) and is thus not an "overnight cost".

​

>The first German Offshore Wind Park Alpha Ventus Offshore Wind Farm with a nameplate capacity of 60 MW cost €250 million (after an initial estimate of €190 million).[21] In 2012 it produced 268 Gigawatt-hours of electricity, achieving a capacity factor of just over 50%.[22] If the overnight cost is calculated for the nameplate capacity, it works out to €4167 per Kilowatt whereas if one takes into account the capacity factor, the figure needs to be roughly doubled.

​

>The Lieberose Photovoltaic Park - one of the largest in Germany - had a nameplate capacity at opening of 52.79 Megawatt and cost some €160 million to build[28][29] or €3031 per kilowatt. With a yearly output of some 52 Gigawatt-hours (equivalent to just over 5.9 Megawatts) it has a capacity factor just over 11%. The €160 million figure was again cited when the solar park was sold in 2010.[30]
>
>The world's largest solar farm to date (2022) in Rajasthan, India - Bhadla Solar Park - has a total nameplate capacity of 2255 Megawatts and cost a total of 98.5 billion Indian rupees to build.[31] This works out to roughly 43681 rupees per kilowatt.

​

>As can be seen by these numbers, costs vary wildly even for the same source of electricity from place to place or time to time and depending on whether interest is included in total cost. Furthermore, capacity factors and the intermittency of certain power sources further complicate calculations. Another issue that is often omitted in discussions is the lifespan of various power plants - some of the oldest hydropower plants have existed for over a century, and nuclear power plants going on five or six decades of continuous operation are no rarity. However, many wind turbines of the first generation have already been torn down as they can no longer compete with more modern wind turbines and/or no longer fit into the current regulatory environment. Some of them were not even twenty-five years old. Solar panels exhibit a certain aging, which limits their useful lifetime, but real world data does not yet exist for the expected lifetime of the latest models.

Edit to conclude: Not to discount you coming back and posting this. Greatly appreciated and respected that you did!

1

PurpleDancer t1_jdcs27i wrote

Thanks. I recognize that this is tricky territory with lots of ifs ands and buts. I'm not really qualified to wade through it and figure out whether any particular method is properly accounting for interests rates, length of power plant service, etc... It requires experts who study this stuff to draw the conclusions. Unfortunately I don't know how to spot who the experts are who have all the knowledge to pull it all together and make sense of it. (For instance the numbers you just cited seem to be about construction costs and not ongoing generation costs)

So I'm using heuristics, like how often I see solar win in the comparisons by various studies, whether I seem to be looking at a source written by the solar/nuclear industry (and promptly discount them because they will be incintivized to use the metric that makes them look best). Another heuristic I use is how much China and India are investing. They are obviously building a massive power system for a developing population, China especially can do darn near whatever it wants without a democratically driven safety bureaucracy. Yet they seem to be investing in solar more than nuclear by a huge margin and that makes sense to me if solar is indeed cheaper over the long haul (though the lack of a rural power grid might be the reason which complicates comparisons to the US which has a complete grid).

2

snowswolfxiii t1_jddl4xf wrote

For what it's worth, since you've extrapolated on your initial comment, it has become starkly apparent that you've put more thought into all of this than your original comment suggested.

It is a very tricky and nuanced subject, which only compounds the moment it leaves a vacuum and starts interacting with literally everything else outside of 'power production security'.

While I hear you on not being qualified to draw conclusions; I also find it to be a dangerous slope to leave all of the thinking to those specialized in it. As you mentioned, they have their own biases, agendas, heuristics, and blind spots; and they always seem to have a bit more sway on policy than voters. (This should be a bit of a universal rule, imo.

Lastly, I have my own biases against solar and wind, largely because of the zealotry surrounding them. I'm seeing it dwindle, thankfully, but for a while there was a vast majority of Pro-Greens that would ardently deny S/W's own eco and climate impacts. (Among many other negatives in the background of the industry.)

Lastly, I do think Maintenance, construction, and all surrounding costs could be considered. As well as the spacial costs for recycling/discarding non-salvageable products. (Solar panels, wind blades, nuclear waste, carbon waste, etc etc)

I have more to add, but my break is over, so I'll cut this short. Hopefully as we move forward, we can figure out the best way to approach these issues. Thanks for a great exchange! Peace and prosperity to you.

1