|
|
|
|
|
|
by lysp
820 days ago
|
|
|
A study was undertaken for the Australian grid. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for... It basically found that you can get close to 100% relatively easily with minimal storage (5 hours average demand). The issue with getting over the mid-90s and to handle 100% is that you need to cater for the edge-cases (conditions that may occur 1-2 times per year max). Either way from memory, LCOE (in $/MWH) for grid-scale solar is around 50-60, adding storage brings costs up to 80-120. Nuclear is in the range of 200-300+, so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward. Especially when you can build them and scale them up quickly (compared to 10-15 years of nuclear builds). |
|
|
Possibly, but nuclear TCO is also extremely well understood, and it's possible that the TCO for these new systems is not. I'd say the error bars are likely to be much longer on the renewables for the next 20 years or so, as we flush out the details.