|
|
|
|
|
|
by chickenbig
387 days ago
|
|
|
> With Vogtles $36.9B we are able to build the equivalent supply in renewables (in TWh) and 10 days of storage at Vogtles 2.2 GWe output. I can't see what you are proposing to do with the $36.9B. How does this break down into GW of wind and solar and GW (and GWh) of storage? |
|
|
Batteries:
- $63/kWh [2] installed and serviced for 20 years = $0.063B per GWh
Large-scale solar:
- A range of $850-$1400/kW [3] = $0.85B - $1.4B per GW
- Capacity factor of 15-30%
Say $1B per GW and 20% for easy round numbers.
Large-scale onshore wind:
- $1300 - $1900/kW [3] = $1.3B - $1.9B per GW
- Capacity factor 30-55%
So say $1.5B/GW and a capacity factor of 40%.
Nuclear power has a capacity factor of ~85% so to match Vogtle's new reactors we need to get to 2.234 GW * 0.85 = 1.9 GW
Solar power:
- 1.9/0.2 = 9.5 GW solar power = $9.5B
Wind power:
- 1.9/0.4 = 4.75 GW wind power = $9B
Compared to Vogtle's $37B we have $28B left to spend on batteries.
- $28B/$0.063B = 444 GWh
444 GWh is the equivalent to running Vogtle for.... 444 GWh/1.9 GW = 233 hours or 9.8 days.
This even ignores nuclear powers O&M costs which are quite substantial. By not having to pay the O&M costs and instead saving them each year after about 20 years we have enough to rebuild the renewable plant.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
[2]: https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/15/chinas-cgn-new-energy-an...
[3]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...