So it's estimated to cost 4x the cost of wind or solar today and it's not being deployed for at least 10yrs. Sounds like a bargain.
Coal plants in particular are dramatically unsuited for the rapid changes in output to respond to changing demands for power.
Gas plants on the other hand are. And gas plants are cheap!
Overbuilding renewables with combinations of solar, geothermal (where available) and wind gives pretty good availability on it's own and with gas plants as a backup it gives you plenty of grid stability.
Edit: A link you posted elsewhere (thanks!) points out how well this works:
> If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh.
Battery storage is already well below this $150/kWh price.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-wind-and-battery-storage-n... gives "Utility-scale battery (four-hour storage duration) $145-167 per MWh" and references BloombergNEF
Better link for Bloomberg reference: https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapid...
As an example, for most of Aus, 5 hrs storage will only work for <80% renewables [0]. It's only practical on smaller scales which doesn't mean it isn't useful now but just means that the ~$100/MWh systems will not be practical everywhere, especially when renewables become more ubiquitous.
[0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-back-high-renewable...
Edit: I had a deeper look at the NREL paper and most of their costs seem to be in the $100s/kWh rather than MWh. E.g ~$300/ kWh for 6 hour systems on Fig. 6.
However can we figure out how to get the same result with twice the energy and the ability to store it indefinitely at 40% efficiency. Especially given that the costs of all these technologies are going down at two digit percent per year.
2028 is 6 years from now.
Also the land requirements for huge solar / wind installations is another downside. Nuclear at scale is a clear winner especially in seismically stable regions of NA.
> If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh.
So just 5% of grid supply from something like gas lets you use storage for baseload now!
Battery storage is now available for as low as $55/MWh.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
The source is "Lazard estimates", but I can't find anything close to this in reality. Pumped hydro is meant to be super cheap, but is currently ~ $100/kWh. I'm starting to agree with the other commenter that Lazard is bunk.
"Pumped hydro is already the cheapest energy storage technology in the world in terms of cost per installed kilowatt-hour of capacity. Total project costs range between $106 and $200 per kilowatt-hour, compared to between $393 and $581 for lithium-ion batteries, World Bank figures show." https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pumped-hydro-mo...
BloombergNEF says $145-167 per MWh.
> If you do that calculation at the global level, we evaluate the LCOE for recently financed projects is at US$150/MWh including charging costs. That’s our benchmark. We have a range around that benchmark which goes from US$115/MWh in China.
https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapid...
So the critical question is: how long will grids connected to renewables need reserve? 4 hours doesn't seem like much but I'm not sure the best way to find this info. Edit: from a 30s google search, 4 hours is only good for <80% renewables in Aus. [0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-back-high-renewable...
And in the mean time gas peaker plants provide a viable, cheap and safe compromise without needing nuclear!
> We found in some cases the battery requirement becomes very large relative to the load, at greater than 20 hours. In these cases, it was concluded that additional gas peaking capacity would be more economic (and biogas was used when the emission constraint did not allow for natural gas).
This is the original report: https://www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/reports/electric... and these graphs are on page 98.
Biogas use isn't practical to replace existing gas supply.
I honestly really wish renewables + batteries could take over but it's too early. Aus has heaps of Uranium, is geologically stable, has strong regulating authorities and geopolitically secure. The perfect spot for low-emissions Nuclear which is practical and possible now in all respects except for politically.
No they're not, as already pointed out in response to your other comments (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32092280), yet you continue to cite them as an authority.
Not to mention the other comments that refute those numbers using the same paper - projects would be closer to ~$100/KWh when storage is taken into account, as shown graphed in the paper itself.
The price of $150 is capacity of a battery. If i want a battery that can store 4 kwh i pay $600.
The other number referencing $55/MWh is referencing levelized cost of storage. I have a a MWh but instead of using it right now i store it for 4 hours. Now this MWh costs its initial price + $55.
Apply this example to a KWh where i would pay $0.1 for it if i used it right now if i want to store it for 4 hours and use it later i have to add $55/1000 to the price or about $0.055. So a directly used KWh would cost me $0.1. One stored for 4 hours would cost me $0.15.
Hope that makes sense and explains these different numbers.
* $300 million for equivalent solar
* $200-400 million for equivalent onshore wind (they don't mention offshore wind which is more cost effective over it's lifetime)
* $1.5 billion for the SMR
Assuming solar and wind stay the same price for the next decade (which they definitely won't) that's a 4-5x construction price difference. The article didn't mention lifetime, decommissioning or running costs, which is likely a significant difference too.