Comment on Solar + Battery (covering 97% of demand) is now cheaper than coal and nuclear

• booly@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Ok, current projections are still for the next two AP1000s at Vogtle to be something like $10 billion. That’s just not cost competitive with solar/wind. And it’s also not very realistic to assume that there won’t be cost overruns on the next one, either. Complex engineering projects tend to run over.

  source

  • BussyCat@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Next two? After you mentioned it I tried googling and can’t find anything about current projections for new AP1000s at vogtle.

    source

    • booly@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      This paper lays out the cost projections that one could expect with the lessons learned from Vogtle Units 3 & 4, with the tax credits and government guarantees available as of 2024:

      web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/…/ANP201 TR CANES.pdf

      source

      • BussyCat@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        According to the link you listed an AP1000 costs $66/MWh where as from the ember report that’s linked in this article solar plus storage for 97% uptime cost $104/MWh in a sunny city. In Washington DC it would cost $124 and only be able to maintain 81%. I still stand by even with the higher cost that solar + storage is a better option in places like Arizona, Nevada, Southern California ,etc. but nuclear is not as much of the high cost boogeyman as you are making it out to be

        ember-energy.org/…/solar-electricity-every-hour-o…

        source

        • -> View More Comments