That is a new PDF document release from Lazard (well its all dated Nov 2018)
The problem with those LCOE charts is they exclude the ability of on-demand 24/7 generation of electricity.
This is now becoming the CORE rule for a power station being built in Australia
As said here for Victoria, "to release a tender for a 500-megawatt power station that could be built", the absolute core rule of the tender is 500MW of power WHEN-EVER they want it for as long as they need it, no excuses, if they can provide 500MW for a month straight then they do not care how it was generated via RE or something else, but its got to be there when requested.
https://www.matthewguy.com.au/media-release/guy-more-power-supply-lower-power-prices-2/
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/energy-generators-cool-on-coalition-vow-to-build-new-power-plant-20181112-p50fgl.html
It's crazy that these LCOE charts are still even made. I really think its due to no other reason than traditional point of view that has come from conventional energy, but it simply doesn't fit with RE.
It should be abandoned or even made illegal to mention or list wind/solar RE in any other term that its "expected AVERAGE MW output", because its pretty much useless and practically irrelevant.
Coca-Cola or KFC/McDonalds is NOT allowed to claim the kilojoules/energy in their food in terms of how they WISH or HOPE it to be, that would be crazy, yet its a misleading standard numbering system for renewables that continues to be used, on top of it not being dispatchable power.
The ONLY reason to phase out such a stupid immoral term/number is to protect EVERYONE from garbage information that has little to do with what it can do. Conventional power-stations can for 24/7 do what they claim.. a 1600MW nuclear power-station can run for months straight at 1600MW power..
It would be far more practical to list each energy project were merely just "Average MW output annual". Anyone can see that number and get a rough idea of what it can do in a second.
Point is for RE Nameplate capacity shouldn't be the baseline for judging RE projects but its rare to EVER even see the "average MW power" listed for RE projects when its really quite crucial for proper evaluation.
Topaz 550MW solar power station is in fact on AVERAGE 145MW.. so if it was a product labelled 550MW in an everyday store it would be illegal, for instance, who would want to buy a Desktop-PC with 550GB storage if it only really has 145GB storage that can on average be used, that simply wouldn't be allowed.
People see renewable facebook memes that are full of very misleading claims, and governments spend billions on RE implementing what the voters want based on these misleading claims, so many Facebook/Youtube channels are being shut down for "fake news" but here we are with constant ridiculous renewables claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
^This project is a comparatively fair example.
For example, the Crescent Dunes which is a solar 125MW project with storage has a 14MW Average Output on its very best year, about 10 times off what its suggesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting to see the Lazard PDF added fuelcell in there and its pretty cheap.
If you follow the fuelcell news the constant increases in efficiency and new stuff being made is truly remarkable, everything from 4 hour flying quadcopters to fuelcell ships and truck announcements
https://twitter.com/fuelcellsworks
I don't have to look very long when I am outside to spot pure battery EV, so there is no argument that there are going to be a large amount of battery EVs over the next decade. The
only thing I really wonder about now is what's next... This is what I think we should all be wondering about.
One of the things I have discovered, that just continues to surprise me, and be completely missed when talking to people, that I just can't repeat enough, is that almost all 4th gen nuclear designs are going to be coupled with mass-generation of Hydrogen by splitting water, either during off-peak or dedicated plants.
This is due to the fact with gen4 nuclear ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Table_of_designs ) it will generate heat for industrial use at a minimum around 650c, and merely using common inductance booster tech ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating ) combined with hybrid electrolysis/thermolysis/thermochemical technology, it will get water to degrees +800c causing a large % of water to instantly split into Hydrogen and Oxygen. (3rd gen nuclear peaks at around 350 degrees Celsius which is useless for anything other than steam generation for turning turbines.)
Once you get water to 3000 °C, most of the water is split into Hydrogen/Oxygen in 1 second, but requiring that level of heat is not required with hybrid thermal-electrolysis, because you break the H2O down via a multi-combination technique.
At the very high temperature of 3000 °C more than half of the water molecules are decomposed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting#Nuclear-thermal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMSR_heat_applications.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production#Thermochemical_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
There are a lot of methods or hybrid methods of very efficient mass-produced split water methods being examined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper%E2%80%93chlorine_cycle
Nuclear Plant Economics & Synthetic Fuel Cogeneration
https://youtu.be/Q1Fi3BnwL94
Then the dream of everyone having co2 free Hydrogen fuel-cell flying cars with 8 hour flight times can be achieved etc https://youtu.be/AHlrLU7kTys
Despite all the speeches and diagrams by folks like Bill Gates and professional engineering in 4th gen nuclear some people still ignore the whole point of 4th gen nuclear in advances like burning the other 99% of mined uranium ( https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I?t=821 ) for 100 fold increase in general efficiency expected and don't make the connection with hydrogen.
Or think because Hydrogen isn't as efficient as batteries it's pointless.
With 3rd gen nuclear, at best, only 1% of the mined uranium is actually used (u235), and rest is just stored. Of that 1% that's actually used, only about 5% of it is fissioned/burned, it's so inefficient you could almost think its a conspiracy, maybe that is why it was a deliberate design choice, to slow nuclear proliferation around the rest of the world.
The Bill Gates Terrapower is by far the most ambitious long-term 4th gen project, trying to burn the entire other 99% of the uranium (u238), plus the whole general reactor power-station design that needs no workers during operation for its lifetime is going to take some time to come, I think Mr Gates is being deliberately over-ambitious to possibly ensure he doesn't crush other 4th-gen competition in the short term.
But the fact is ALL 4th-gen projects are taking similar paths in massive increases in how what mix of uranium they use, and how they burn it and how little they have to do to run/monitor the whole power-station.
4th gen projects like the Terrestrial Energy's IMSR is a much more realistic design to see sometime soon, short wait time to be built 4th gen reactor. In fact, all its designs are done and they are merely awaiting nuclear regulatory approval to build a grid-connected full demonstration reactor in Canada.
https://youtu.be/OgTgV3Kq49U
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-review/index.cfm#p2
If the public really wanted 4th gen nuclear I am sure it could be approved and built in no time at all, China is essentially/apparently building such MSRs right now but are really just for testing/military use.
For example, when the US Airforce wanted a nuclear-powered super-hot-air-jet-engine aircraft, it was pretty much built/done in a few years, even the though the whole idea was insane, this was before they needed regulatory approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion#Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment
When they wanted to test the safety of molten salt in case of an accident, they just dumped the radioactive molten salt into a dirt pit with Geiger-counters around it to see if any radioactive particles attached to a gaseous form. This is the main advantage of molten salt reactors vs water based reactors we have today, as in nothing from the nuclear fuel-salt turns into radioactive gas and floats away contaminating the surrounding area, instead, it all binds to the salt and stays put.
https://youtu.be/_5iEQ6LXIWY?t=2053
The way to understand hydrogen-economy/future that is being worked on now and quasi-implemented by various governments around the world, is if we had a breakthrough for a real working version of the fusion energy promise from the Tokamak, for basically unlimited effortless energy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
it would then be a no-brainer to use it to generate Hydrogen right? Because the Tokamak is a box that is producing unlimited energy, so why not use it to generate co2 free hydrogen, even if its just for synfuels, synfuels are basically Hydrogen mixed with atmospheric co2 to create ultra-clean liquid combustible fuels that are carbon neutral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Hydrogen-using_alternatives_to_a_fully_distributive_hydrogen_economy
Well, thats what the plan is with gen 4 nuclear, its considered so much more efficient, that mass production of Hydrogen or Synfuels is a no-brainer and is listed with just about any 4th gen nuclear design description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor second paragraph.
While the hydrogen economy, the thermochemical production of hydrogen to synthesize Carbon-neutral fuels, is deemed as strengthening the economic case for the two most efficient models, the high temperature reactor designs.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-high-temperature_reactor
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Very_High_Temperature_Reactor.svg/320px-Very_High_Temperature_Reactor.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMSR_heat_applications.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Molten_Salt_Reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages
There is frequently confusion between Molten-salt reactor (MSR) and Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR).
The "Sodium" reactors have been around for a long time in experimental reactors and have clocked up some bad news/headlines over time, these are NOT the same as MSR reactors.
DOES SALT MEAN SODIUM?
Molten salt reactors are quite different from sodium fast reactors, even though many people think of sodium when they hear of salt. The sodium metals used by those reactors can release a hydrogen byproduct that is combustible in the presence of air or water. Our fluoride salts remove this fire risk, while further simplifying and increasing the safety of the plant design.
http://www.transatomicpower.com/nuclear-power-glossary-of-terms/
China apparently has a kind of Manhattan project for MSR.. because they don't have regulator processes to approve everything its possible they will be in the hoped Hydrogen fuel-cell flying cars/transport etc way before the rest of the world and be free from fossil fuels. You can see the same kind of vision in this image/article.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2122977/china-hopes-cold-war-nuclear-energy-tech-will-power-warships
