Hacker News Reader

Comment by woeirua | Hacker News Reader

How much solar could they have built for the same price? Just doing some very rough calculations, they could have built enough panels to output several times as much peak power as they can with the nuclear reactors. Even including storage costs, they still could have probably built a system with more productive capacity than the nuclear reactors. This project is almost certainly the last conventional fission reactor that will ever be built in the US.

View on HN

I think that some small modular reactors will get built. Whether more SMRs get built after the initial test deployments will depend on their own achieved cost/schedule numbers.

The Georgia reactors can't compete on price with solar projects backed by 4-8 hours of battery storage at current prices. However, the project started developing in 2010:

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/02/vogtle-20100217.htm...

At then-current prices for solar and especially battery storage, Vogtle 3 & 4 were economically rational decarbonization projects. Or at least they would have been if they had actually met their initially announced schedule and cost numbers.

The unpredictability of scheduling/budgeting for nuclear power projects is IMO their most unattractive characteristic. In 2010 costs for solar farms were much higher, but they were at least predictable. If a project developer said that a solar farm would be generating by November 2010, it would be generating by November 2010. The predictability enabled projects to gradually increase in size and number with high confidence that none of them would snowball into a financial catastrophe like Vogtle did. Iterative development with predictable characteristics brought solar project costs down dramatically since 2010.

Did you factor in land costs, preparing the land, lawsuits, etc in your rough calculations? How many acres would your calculation of solar panels cover?

It likely wasn't viable when the decision to choose to start building the plant was made.

Enough to put a nice roof over lots of carparks and roads perhaps.

> Even including storage costs

How much storage is required for solar(+wind if you're not a masochist) to reliably supply a consistent 2234 MW for 50 years?

Nuclear Plants aren't about peak power, they're about baseline. If you want to replace Nuclear with solar, you have to replace the baseline.

I think the problem is incentives - it would be way more effective to cover the cost of decentralized solar panels, but then you don't have to charge for the power and there's no way to "recover" the investment. I think we're going to keep seeing these dissonances until we can get over the idea that everything has to generate money

For 50 years of operation your solar plant would have had all it's panels replaced at least once and your batteries would have probably been replaced 5 times, if using todays' technology.

Solar only appears cheaper if you removed every external cost from it.

Peak power is the key word. It's not a constant like Nuclear unless power storage improves many orders of magnitude from where its at right now.

Also given global tensions and solar's reliance on China in its supply chain i'm not sure its the better option.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com