The largest solar farm just came online in China
electrek.co
electrek.co
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/06/worlds-largest-solar-...
It's expected to generate 6.09 TWh per year, for a capacity factor of 19.8%. That's equivalent to $3.07 per real annualized watt. For rough comparison purposes, last year's contract for China to build a 1.2 GW nuclear reactor in Pakistan was for $4.8 billion [1] (4 dollars per watt, $4.44 per real annualized watt assuming a 90% capacity factor [2]).
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/pakistan-signs-4-8-billion-nuclear...
[2] https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails....
For Chinese projects we can assume that the price tag also doesn't match the actual costs (similar to French nuclear projects) due to heavy government subsidies.
Why would China subsidize a $5 billion reactor in Pakistan? That's not their MO with the Belt and Road initiative - China prefers to inflate sticker prices and loan more money to the buyer, building more economic influence.
The project certainly benefits from the economies of scale thanks to all the reactors China builds, but it hardly helps to conflate that with actual subsidies.
There is one other interesting tidbit about the pricing of energy projects. Renewables have been scrutinized about their price to an unprecendented extent. Before renewables, costs were usually a minor concern in the public debate when it came to build-out of energy infrastructure.
In the nuclear heavy country like France (which did benefit from the so called 'economy of scale' most, in their case it was more the will for nuclear armament), the government decides the prices for households. They had to increase it steeply in the last decade, and a government commission suggested to further increase it by 74% this year. The government decided to only increase it by 10%. I guess they are a bit afraid of the protest-loving population. Nobody cares for costs, if they don't see it.
In Germany meanwhile the subsidies (for renewables mind you, not for all the other forms of energy) actually work in a way that they are added to the price of all electricity. So while German and French prices get closer and closer now, the German household electricity prices reflect the total cost much better than the French prices.
Now we have enough data to not just project costs, but also we know what we actually pay. And contrary to what everyone believed, renewables are actually the cheapest form of energy we can get. And when you look at the fundamental physical process, it even makes sense. No need to dig anything out of the ground, because the source that put all this into the ground actually is accessible on the surface. No need to create a process that biological beings never used for energy. Wind and solar are just technological variations on the theme that evolution put into live and proven for billions of years. It just makes sense to leverage for the bulk of our energy needs until such time when our energy needs overtake what is accessible so easily. That may be a century from now or even farther in the future.
You are comparing $4/(watt-day) to $1/(watt-hr).
It's certainly possible I'm mixing up things. I will go back to the linked figures and start from scratch.
(Aside: assuming your point, it would be 12, not 24, as the batteries only shift from day to night and not vice versa).
I think you are still missing the point. you will use the battery exactly once per day and it provides 1 watt-hour each time. It isnt providing 1 watt-hour every hour of the day, nor is it providing 1 watt-hour every 12 hours. you discharge it once every 24 hours, or 365 times in a year.
Compare this to nuclear, which is providing 1 watt-hour every single hour in a day. (1 watt-day = 24 watt-hours.
Going through the numbers one step at a time and keeping track of the units, I believe the core problem is that the original was a meaningless unit in the first place, taking the total system construction cost and dividing by the power output (but expressing things in the middle in terms of energy produced over the whole year).
(Not that it matters except to help me avoid such mistakes later, but because the numbers which are important are in units of $/Wh not $/W, I just assumed and that assumption led to me doing the thing I did).
So, we have: PV for $3.06/W, nuclear for $4.34/W
But that's not what energy is normally priced in, energy is normally priced in [money]/[energy] rather than [money]/[power], to convert between them I have to account for system lifetimes.
The IAEA says nuclear plants have a lifetime of "between 20 and 40 years"[0], so I'll pick the half way value of 30. PV is generally guaranteed to last at least 20, but expected to last 30; as very few have been around that long and the tech is rapidly changing, I'll be pessimistic for that and pick 20.
With those assumptions, this gives nuclear a cost per unit of energy of $16.5 / MWh (which is extremely cheap, so much so it's outright suspicious!); and PV a cost per unit of energy of $17.49 / MWh (which would also be extremely cheap, bordering suspicious, though by a smaller margin as the normal LCOE is lower anyway).
For comparison, this graph suggests PV is usually about 3 times that and nuclear usually around 10-11 times that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity#...
Now, with these numbers, you don't really need to ask about the cost of storage, the nuclear option is just directly cheaper than the PV. I assume the surprise here is that maintenance costs are not included in construction costs? But then I'd be going down a completely different rabbit hole trying to dig into how Lazard reached those numbers.
Would be good for everyone if China's actually done what people keep asking for with cheap nuclear power.
[0] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf
Your aside, while not critical, was also no true. The time between sequential discharging of a battery is 24 hours, not 12. The time between charging and discharging is irrelevant, just how many times you do it a year.
I think you are also misinterpreting the parent post. I think they are intentionally providing [money]/[power]. This is a common format when talking about the cost of installed grid capacity.
I should have converted your watt-hour numbers to [money]/[power] and used to for better comparison.
>For comparison, this graph suggests PV is usually about 3 times that and nuclear usually around 10-11 times that:
LCOE is a radically different form of calculation than what you used, and not comparable. It takes into account many other factors, most notably the time value of money.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185276/us-nuclear-refuel...
GA famously took 7 years and spent $17B.
France , India and some other countries regularly builds reactors and they don’t cost anywhere close to the cost GA had
France, 13.2€ billion, 17 years, still not producing. Started loading fuel this month.
France built 20 P4/P'4 reactors, most were built on time and at reasonable costs.
The last gen N4 had only 4 units, even then the second batch at CIVAUX costed only $4B.1[2] i.e. $1,349/ kWe overnight costs
Vogtle(GA) 3/4 is expected to cost ~ $8,000 /kWe [3] [4] and the EPR is at Flamanville 3(France) is expected to come in at $6,500 kWe [5].
France projects to achieve 40% cost reduction and faster commisioning for EPR designs over next few being built to achieve $ 3800 /kWe overnight costs [5]. The report details on how they this is achieved and gains already seen at Taishan(China) ( partly owned by EDF)
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency reports in the modern era the overnight costs to be between $2,157 kWe [South Korea] to $6,900 kWe [Slovakia] [6]
Reduction in time and cost is normal to expect in any repeated project development. The first one is path finder, next few should benefit from them, however if we do just built only a few then costs or timeline shouldn't be an objective to compare.
---
[2] https://www.power-technology.com/projects/civaux/?cf-view
[3] https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/AP1000-remains-attra....
[4] https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/
[5] https://www.sfen.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/EN-The-cost-...
[6] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
With nuclear power is always "is expected...", "projections are...", "it's hard...", "the next one would be...". You know what is delivering in time and costs right now? Solar and wind.
I realize that from this thread point of view it seems I am changing the argument, that’s on me . It is not always the commenter is trying to the move the goal post sometimes things to do happen .
—-
To the actual point, It is not about whether nuclear is best option, I never compared it with any other option. It was not defense of nuclear , it was of project and costs management .
Nuclear’s costs cannot be baselined by costs at GA , every developed country is doing it half the costs or less.
With respect to “projected” gains are already realized in Taishan, yes it is china but that does not make EDF components being built in Europe faster or, state subsidies can make projects cheaper not faster .
France and other countries have proven track record of building plants . Citing one outlier with brand new tech plant whose costs and time have ballooned is not valid argument .
Reject or dislike nuclear for any number of reasons ideological, economic or environmental, but building a single plant after 40 years and saying it is too costly and slow is a dishonest argument .
What a joke. Nuclear is great and all, but not when it’s run like this.
It is like saying designing and building a single new car is costing few millions and taking years when a Corolla is 20,000 and you drive off the plot today .
I'm very shocked to see that China's utility scale solar project is $600 per kwp. I almost want to say something must be wrong with that number. It's higher than retail rooftop PV costs which is $450 per kwp.
Which country is that in? I don't know of any country where you can get e.g. a 5 kilowatt rooftop system installed for $2250 (except perhaps with special government tax credits/incentives). The costs for this Chinese project include not just the PV modules but the land, racking, inverters, transformers, grid connection, and installation labor.
That's it </political>
What else do you want?
Sure there are issues over regulations and power lines approval, but those are hopefully going to get solved surely.
Case point: Oil and gas industry-loving Texas added 6.5 GW of solar in 2023 alone, more than any other state.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/tex...
I wouldn't worry, the smart money is on renewables, and nothing is going to stop it. Plus, national security people know it is so important globally.
So it’s not always just simple humans, but also malevolent ones too creating the uphill climb. Such is life.
This is not a change you will see in your lifetime clearly. This is clearly a change that _is_ occurring during your life time.
Industry and individuals switch quickly when the economics are favorable.
Trillions of dollars stand to be made from Renewables by groups with deep political connections.
https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/whiteh...
“Our investigation revealed how Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, API, and the Chamber worked in concert to mislead the public, policymakers, and investors with public promises to reduce emissions and meaningfully contribute to the transition away from oil and gas, while privately seeking to lock in continued fossil fuel production for decades into the future,” wrote Whitehouse and Raskin. “The investigation also demonstrated that the fossil fuel industry continues to knowingly obfuscate the dangers of natural gas, which they have billed as a clean and green fuel. This evidence, combined with the entities’ failure to comply fully with validly issued congressional subpoenas, suggests that further investigation by the executive branch is warranted.”
“Our investigation into the fossil fuel industry calls to mind the historic congressional investigation into deceptive practices of the tobacco industry and its trade associations, which led to investigations and litigation by several state attorneys general and the Department of Justice (DOJ),” they continued. “DOJ is well situated to pursue further investigation and take any appropriate legal action, as it has in similar cases involving the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.”
Perhaps we disagree about the definition of the word "significantly"?
There is a lot of "green washing" that intentionally ignores this outcome because what it really wants to do is capture the subsidies for itself. Which is what I was alluding to originally.
There are 341 million other Americans that have an interest in where our energy comes from (and what goes into our atmosphere).
(I'm all for generous support for any American facing major disruption because of macroeconomic changes btw. Getting rural places a fair share of national prosperity is a national problem)
What is an "insane amount?" Is there a spreadsheet or scorecard somewhere that quantifies this?
Solar panels use a lot of space that could be used for other things like growing food. They make the earth extremely hot as they absorb so much heat from the sun. The political zealots talk about climate change but avoid to talk about that.
It is not excuses, there is very intelligent people working on those problems. Natural gas makes a lot of sense combined with solar and wind because solar only works when the sun is above and wind when the wind blows. You need something for winter and nights. Energy storage is very expensive, and also require lots of energy and raw materials for manufacturing.
For wind mills to make sense you need wind. Lots of countries do not have wind, and also produce heat an noise and kill birds.
In Spain, when the price of the panels and inverters go down, if you have users nearby, it makes sense. In Germany, with half the insolation, it does not.
There is no "free" anything. Everything has its ups and downs.
We need less politicians, lawyers without knowledge of science and engineering.
https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/solar/solar-en...
What are you smoking? The sun is not sending more light to the places with solar panels. It just absorbs light that is already hitting earth. If anything it makes earth cooler as it absorbs light that would otherwise just hit the ground and make ground hotter.
The correct response to grandparent is that the magnitude of the increase in heat is small enough to be safely ignored.
A. light absorbed by solar panels that eventually turn into heat
B. light absorbed by the ground which pretty much all becomes heat
I'm pretty sure B is much greater than A.
(Or by another metric: China has about twice as much solar production capacity as the US, but a much smaller fraction per-capita[3].)
[1]: https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight
[2]: https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/SolarCheatS...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country#Global_...
Wouldn't the most relevant measure, at least as far as emissions go, be the ratio of energy coming from renewables / solar vs. total energy consumption? Or something similar?
edit: spelling
US uses roughly 2.5-3x the energy per capita compared to china fwiw [1]. The energy use per capita can be influenced by all sorts of things, including climate - for instance, SGP will always be in the top few spots on this sort of list due to the space conditioning needs. Could also be due to lots of heavy industry. Could also be due to lots of inefficient homes or high consumer demand. So it can also be interesting to look at energy use per person plotted against GDP per capita, where as expected higher energy use per capita typically also means higher GDP per capita [2]. US has significantly higher GDP per capita.
Anyways, at the end of the day, in this kind of head-to-head energy technology race, the only thing I care about really at the end of the day is decarbonization. The US has been falling each year (not fast enough though, and much of it does not actually come from renewable adoption but instead other changes like natural gas replacing coal over the last decade and changes in mfg capacity etc) while China is still rapidly increasing. Both countries need to be doing more, way more (well really the whole world).
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-person-vs-...
[1]: https://www.ecowatch.com/china-new-solar-capacity-2023.html
We need to stop looking at "China" or "The US" or "Europe" as homogeneous entities.
(By contrast, US electricity use has been almost stagnant for 2 decades[1]. This informs the country's relationship with newer generation techniques.)
[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/201794/us-electricity-co...
It can’t. Besides demography, Xi has wiped out his political competition. The history of what comes after a long-serving dictator who purged his generation’s political braintrust is unidirectional.
True, and Kruschev is 20 years Stalin’s junior. I’m inclined to regard him as a fluke; the wheels of power replaced him with the far-less competent Brezhnev after ten years, at which point the Soviets’ fate was sealed.
It’s an open question: if the ISSR could have both beaten the U.S. and remained intact following Stalin’s death. I don’t think they could have. Insisting on not just parity, but supremacy, may have doomed them.
The ability for Beijing is Taiwan. They really shouldn’t obsess over it. But Xi has done so, and likely can’t retreat. Which means his successor is similarly damned, and with him, his nation.
Very, very cool. I’m so happy the future is being built while I am alive to see it.
as usual