Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[neptronix]

lol sorry, i mean more like watt hours per dollar

My source for the conclusion that nuclear power is expensive:
That was the monopoly energy provider for an area i grew up in, electricity notably more expensive than surrounding areas burning nat gas or whatever.

In the states i've yet to hear of nuclear power not costing more than fossil fuel or renewables.
New reactor construction pretty much always has massive cost overruns too.

Okay, read the paper. Interesting that there's a figure to account for intermittency ( good )

Two figures to think about.. the up front cost first:


ref: Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia

This puts nuclear at around the third most expensive to construct per mw-hr delivered.



Well gosh, this figure makes renewables usually look bad once you account for intermittency. But not always. Go Texas!

I see why people would argue about this for 7 years to no conclusion, from an economics-only perspective, handling intermittency is a big problem unless you solve the batteries cost problem.

For Nuclear it seems that the cost of operation is going up over time and you have the making weapons grade uranium problem to solve still, no? This seems harder to solve vs - how do we make make a super economic battery out of sodium that levels the cost of storage ( we're ~50% of the way there, and 0% of the way there to solve the weapons problem, no? )

And fossil fuel remains the predominate energy as usual because of it's low investment and running costs ( and also subsidies, legal exemptions, tax credits, and direct payments )

The debate reminds me of the 16 bit console wars, or Coke versus Pepsi, the two options both have strengths and weaknesses, not one truly comes ahead of another. Some people just think one attribute is more important than the other.

I think that if sodium ion battery costs drop, this could improve the case for renewables. Any efficiency gains in the production of renewable energy aren't going to be huge. This main added cost that represents the adjusted LFSCOE is batteries, so..

 

[neptronix]

Trump card? Impressive stuff going on over there in France lately:



I think the last time i heard of a fusion record, the reaction lasted a minute..
Cost? possibly insane, but potential if developed is a big ? for me.

 

[TheBeastie]

This is the problem with chatGPT, it could be completely or partially wrong, you always need to verify information before posting.
The problem is that wrong information can waste other people's time.
Always vet and confirm!

It's accurate. I meant those words in a very loose way, I foolishly thought it would encourage people would look for themselves and see it's accurate and finally learn the basics for themselves.
You can actually ask chatGTP via the share to break it down and explain it to you, that is what I will do below.

But it's no coincidence that using the output from chatGPT generates a lot of discussion, because people know deep down inside that this output is in fact perfectly accurate.
Putting out this kind of nuclear vs wind/solar math manually as I have for ~10 years on this thread, no one really cares, because it wasn't generated from a rather simple question put to AI to compare solar vs wind vs nuclear using real world projects.

It appears this fact-based math via AI overly reaches into their mental capability for understanding, or, for others, exceeds people’s mental capability for understanding, so for a lot of people when they see the truth presented via a pretty simple question to AI they get notable levels of cognitive dissonance, and (hopefully) their brain finally accepts the real world reality of wind/solar.

AI merely tabling real world data of nuclear vs renewables via a simply question creates cognitive dissonance for a lot of people that reminds me of this scene from the Matrix.

I have actually asked chatGPT to tens to maybe hundred times compare projects listed on Wikipedia that have their construction costs etc well and truly publicly listed everywhere over the last 6 months or so, and these results below are the numbers it generally comes back with when the core inputs are correct, with wind/solar being around 10 to 20 times more expensive than nuclear, once it has the core inputs correct then the basic arithmetic for chatGPT is super easy for it to do (as it is for humans)

I have the issue that, due to my deep familiarity with the data, I kind of assume everyone can see it's accurate..

What I have found truly disturbing is how many renewable energy projects don't actually release their full construction costs, you might see $1billion from the government and the rest private but in general it's quite secret, which is unlike nuclear where the costs are constantly published...

Let me break down the core easy verifiable bits, using "copy link highlight" so you can see the bits of information on the page or google it up from a bunch of difference sources.

* Goal is to generate 250TWh annually to power Australia for 60 years to match the most likely life span of a modern nuclear power plant build (lots of claims now say 80years is viable)

So for powering Australia via solar, we need 208 Topaz Solar Farms to do this to generate 250TWh on an annual basis.

Here are the verifiable information for the Topaz Solar Farm
- The $2.5 billion project

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- 9.5 square miles (25 km2)

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- Annual net output 1,282 GW·h or ( 1.2TWh)

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

http://eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/57695

Here is the simple arithmetic math that anyone can do on a calculator as presented on the AI's output table posted here Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Solar Generation

• 1 Topaz Farm ≈ 1.2 TWh/year
• 1.2 TWh/yr × 208 Farms ≈ 250 TWh/yr (matches Australia’s demand)
• Cost per Farm: $2.4 billion
• $2.4 bn × 208 ≈ $500 bn initial build
• Over 60 years (3 total builds): $1.5 trillion
• Land: 25 km² × 208 ≈ 5,200 km²

Now you can just walk away and leave it at $1.5trillion USD if you want and ignore it needs a battery to compare with nuclear.

Battery Storage

But to make it a 24/7 electricity as a service (like nuclear) we need to add a battery, here are is the break down.
If you need to power Australia with 28.54GW of electricity for 14hours, then it's about (28.54GW x 14) = ~400GWh of storage

-Battery Storage (14 hours/day)

• Total: ~400 GWh for entire grid
• Cost: $500k/MWh → $200 bn
• Replaced every 15 years (4 cycles over 60 yrs): $200 bn × 4 = $800 bn

$1.56 tn + $800 bn = $2.36 trillion total cost for solar.


- Where do battery costs come from?
They are based on an in-between of Tesla big battery projects, and is averaged to $500 million per GWh.
The original publicly reported cost for the famous 2017 Tesla battery built in South Australia that started via tweets from Elon Musk to the SA premier was $66 million for 129 MWh
It is now listed as "Construction cost 172 million A$"

Hornsdale Power Reserve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Price for grid battery storage from Tesla has actually gone up considerably since 2017.
The cost of the most recent fully built Tesla battery in Melbourne (Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub) cost about $800million per GWh.
There is a difference between just ordering the grid storage batteries from Tesla and actually getting the delivered and built.

ChatGPT - Australia electricity usage average MW

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

Wind Generation
The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm
- $2 billion project

Shepherds Flat Wind Farm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- build 90 miles (140 km) of power lines and 85 miles (137 km) of roads on the 30-square-mile (78 km2) wind farm

Shepherds Flat Wind Farm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- Annual net output 1,677 GW·h (1.6TWh)

Shepherds Flat Wind Farm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shepherds Flat Wind Farm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The AI decided on an even more biased/fair number for electricity generation for the wind farm calculations, and gave it a 30% capacity factor and a total annual generation output of 2.22 TWh/year (2,220,000 MWh or 2,220 GWh)

• 1 Shepherds Wind Farm ≈ 2.2 TWh/year
• 2.2 TWh/yr × 113 Farms ≈ 250 TWh/yr (matches Australia’s demand)
• Cost per Farm: $2 billion
• $2 bn × 113 ≈ $226 bn initial build
• Over 60 years (3 total builds): $678 billion
• Land: 78 km² × 113 ≈ 8,814 km²

Battery + wind farm total
$678 bn + $800 bn = $1.48 trillion

Nuclear Power.
Nuclear is very straight forward, the costs are always up front in total cost, the size is small, and because they put out so much more power you only need a few of them, the reason they "appear" expensive is because they are putting out x35 times more electricity than a solar or wind farm, when you look at that fact it's clear that most people are "low IQ" when it comes to comparing nuclear with renewables, they don't look at the actual real world power output.

- A later Bloomberg report indicates the price as $25 billion.

Barakah nuclear power plant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• 1 nuclear power plant ≈ 44.2 TWh/year
• 44.2 TWh/yr × 6 Farms ≈ 250 TWh/yr (matches Australia’s demand)
• Cost per nuclear plant: $25 billion
• $25 bn × 6 ≈ $150 bn initial build
• Over 60 years (lasts 60+ years): $150 billion
• Land: 5 km² × 6 ≈ 30 km²

No battery required.

I am actually truly disappointed you guys didn't see this simple data and math in the initial table.
If you live in an area that continues to have have more wind/solar deployed, then you know how much your electricity bill keeps going up.
It's real world data vs theoretical.
If you research the build costs of wind and solar farms, most are hidden. What I find most shocking about wind and solar is the endless lies and misinformation—it’s worse than USAID, in my opinion, to the point where I wonder if wind/solar renewables is part of the same CIA lead USAID program.

Reference to the original chatGTP output.

ChatGPT - Energy Generation Cost Comparison

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

 

[stancecoke]

What I find most shocking about wind and solar is the endless lies and misinformation

I find it most shocking, that you don't ask things, that are realistic. Nuclear power is not suitable for variable demand of electricity. It can only be a part of a mix of different sources.
Just ask your loved ChatGPT, what would be the costs per MWh, if you consider all costs like capital costs, maintenance, nuclear fuel, waste management...
You will get no fixed answer, but a range from not really cheap to enormous expensive. So why do you think, your truth is the real truth and all others are lying?

Spoiler: Answer from Opera Aria

The costs for generating one MWh of electrical energy in nuclear power plants can vary significantly based on several factors, including the specific plant design, location, and regulatory environment. Here’s a breakdown of the key components that contribute to the overall costs:

1. Capital Costs:
   • The capital costs for building a nuclear power plant can range from $7,675 to $12,500 per kilowatt for a typical 2,200 MWe plant. This includes financing costs, which can be substantial due to the high initial investment required.
2. Operational and Maintenance Costs:
   • These costs are generally lower compared to other energy sources. The operational costs, including fuel and maintenance, are relatively small components of the total cost.
3. Fuel Costs:
   • Fuel costs for nuclear power are typically stable, but they can fluctuate based on market conditions. This includes costs for purchasing fuel and managing waste disposal.
4. Decommissioning Costs:
   • The costs associated with decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its life cycle can be significant. These costs are often planned for and included in the overall financial assessments.
5. Final Disposal Costs:
   • The management and final disposal of nuclear waste are critical components of the total cost. These costs can vary widely depending on the regulatory framework and the chosen disposal methods.

Summary of Costs​

Taking all these factors into account, the total costs for one MWh of electricity from nuclear power plants typically range between $60 and $100 per MWh. This range reflects the complexity and variability of nuclear energy economics, influenced by both technical and regulatory factors.

If you have more questions about nuclear energy or any other topic, feel free to ask!

I also don't understand, why you are stressing the battery thing. We all say, that batteries are not suitable for long term storage (at the moment). We will have to invest in our grids anyway, as the demand increases and the recent grid is not able to handle this demand.
Are you payed by a nuclear company?

https://www.pedelecforum.de/forum/i...r-stromerzeugung-sinnvoll.108094/post-2285095

 

[Hillhater]

Nuclear power is not suitable for variable demand of electricity.

Every grid/state/country has a minimum demand or (“base load”…a term which seems to scare Wind and Solar proponents ?)
In the case of Australia, that minimum is 18 GW at around 4am every day and has been the same for decades.
So we could comfortably use over 10 GW of Nuclear without concern, leaving ather sources (Gas, Coal, Hydro, renewables etc) to supply the variable demand in excess of that level.

I also don't understand, why you are stressing the battery thing. We all say, that batteries are not suitable for long term storage (at the moment)

If the current drive to Wind and Solar continues, either storage or “stand by/back up” generation is essential to ensure continuity of supply. Germany , a leader in renewables, was one of the first to realise that relying on a high % of wind /solar has disastrous consequences when there is a long period of low wind ( many days), and they have had to maintain a 100% back up of fossil fuel generation to cover those periods.
obviously, having “dual” sources of generation capacity has it impact on operational costs.
in very sunny Australia, we have towns that have transferred to Solar grid supply but have to retain their original OCGas generators to be ready for those sudden storm clouds to disrupt the supply.
So, if not batteries , then how do we make the intermittent generators practical ?

 

[stancecoke]

This is the great challenge of our time! Battery storage can bridge one or two days, but not two weeks of dark doldrums or even store the surplus from the summer for the winter. Gas-fired power plants that only run for two weeks a year don't make economic sense either. Nuclear power plants are certainly not.
We as humanity will have to come up with something cleverer. As long as we have no better solution, we have to keep fossil fuels as a backup.

 

[neptronix]

But it's no coincidence that using the output from chatGPT generates a lot of discussion, because people know deep down inside that this output is in fact perfectly accurate.

Hold up. I work in software and systems engineering and i know that even the state of the art AI can be convincingly wrong.
You always have to vet output.

Most people know that AI isn't perfectly accurate from their experiences using it.

There's a huge danger in blindly believing LLM output because it cannot and does not think like you or me.
About 7 lawyers have got in legal trouble for this, so for legal purposes, straight chatGPT output can't be considered truth.

I've been gaslighted by large language models many times.

Thanks for providing sources though, that's what i actually wanted.


That barakh power plant sounds like the cheapest one i've heard of, it's way out of line with averages i've seen. I think that a comparison of 3 particular power plants isn't a good one to make an argument because they might be cherry picked. I want to see averages instead.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the below looks like averages. Those are the figures i want to see, instead of specific power plants which are easily cherry picked to make any kind of argument since there's a huge variance in their costs per type.

 

[Hillhater]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the below looks like averages.

They may be averages, but i would still only use the data as a guide or comparason indicator, not as a definitive figure.
..for instance, the efficiency difference between an Open Cycle Gas generator ( combustion turbine) and an Combined Cycle gas generator ( combustion turbine with heat recovery) is known to be very significant (+30%).
That is not reflected in some of those cost tabulated, so those figures might need some checking.
However, as an overall “picture” , the data does show the huge hidden costs of intermittent supply generation systems compared to “despatchable” generation sources.

 

[TheBeastie]

That barakh power plant sounds like the cheapest one i've heard of, it's way out of line with averages i've seen. I think that a comparison of 3 particular power plants isn't a good one to make an argument because they might be cherry picked. I want to see averages instead.

The Barakah is pretty cheap, but if you ask AI to show recent large nuclear projects around the world and their costs then you will see it's actually typical for projects outside the USA and UK where there are no delays in getting it built due to opposing politics.

This aligns with Australia’s situation, as the country—like the UAE—has no experience in building nuclear power stations.
If Australia were to pursue nuclear energy, it would likely outsource construction to similar companies that have proven to build quickly like the Barakah plant, Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).

Additionally, companies KEPCO (and others) have recently claimed that they can now build nuclear power plants even faster than they did with Barakah, which was already considered a rapid construction project.

Here is the AI's summary of the history of the The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in the USA, it had extreme levels of activism that caused it to be very expensive and delayed in construction.

ChatGPT - Vogtle delays and opposition

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

If you ask AI to list large renewable projects that also list their costs built in the USA you will find it remarkably hard to find any recent projects, it might list some, but when you go and google them up yourself you will find they have been scrapped due to cost blow outs or some other reason.

Here is Grok's answer on "List some medium to small sized wind farms in the USA that publicly list their total construction costs."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/zzFTkbQA8iiPQr4dxuqJRa2a5

The FIRST thing it says is this "Finding detailed, publicly available data on total construction costs for medium to small-sized wind farms in the USA can be challenging, as this information is often proprietary or not comprehensively disclosed in public records."
If you use the ones it does find and ask AI to generate a table to power Australia using those projects then you will find the same level of costs as I have posted here..

This is also the same in Australia, where basically every wind/solar project is at least partly funded by the government and has a guaranteed subsidized agreement where everyone in Australia is forced by law to buy the power generated from it at any time it starts to generate power (sun shines, wind blows).
If you could make apple pies and have a federal government law that everyone has to buy your pies when ever you decide to make them then it's a pretty safe deal, but remarkably the government still puts in at least half the money for these projects, and the total cost still remains largely secret.
This is because (IMO) the people behind renewables know the tables that AI generates comparing renewables vs nuclear are accurate and they don't want to take in real financial risks even when there is so much financial support backing behind them.

- X's new AI (Grok 3) outputs quite similar numbers.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/1qyvQqNrEVLhTCz6Ux9HwKIRT

^If you look at Grok AI's thinking log, it makes some slightly different assumptions but is still very similar (and in some cases exactly the same). But Grok likes to give at least slightly better benefit of the doubts to renewables.
For example, Grok decides the wind farm can do 35% capacity factor vs chatGPT 30% (officially the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm has 22.7% capacity factor), Grok also decides on cheaper battery storage costs (per MWh of storage).

Also, I decided on and asked for just 12 hours of storage backup instead of 14 hours, and Grok also adjusts for inflation somewhat.
But again, you can ask it to explain everything in detail if you don't see enough in the log it created.

Above all to note, it's just all simple arithmetic, and the AI just has to grab/collect the basic core inputs correctly that being:
Project Cost
Project site area size in km2
Project electricity Net Output (ether via capacity site size with capacity factor) or by average annual TWh (or GWh / MWh), as the AI can work it out with any of these inputs when it is calculating it over an annual output based time frame.

For Net Output, AI (lately) tends to generalize to the most typical capacity factor/net outputs of renewables and nuclear for this, it tends to use off shore wind capacity factor/net output instead of onshore.
If you ask AI what are the most common capacity factors for solar/wind/nuclear you will get 25%, 35%, 90%. Which is quite fair IMO.
You can just put in the main question that "Solar has 2TWh annual output" and force it to go with a particular number, but I think it's more fair for it to decide as long as it is within what is typical for these projects.

Grok 3 AI output table for basically the same question asked to chatGPT.