Great writing! People use LCOE as a gospel trying to prove that nuclear is dead and not needed anymore with so much cheaper W&S. Contrary to intuition that something is off, looking at countries with high penetration of W&S and price of power there. Guess it is not necessarily the problem of LCOE itself but abuse of reading to much out of that(with agendas).
The multiplier factor is amazing and we all should spread that knowledge from the rooftops. If only nuclear costs would go back to being clearly cheaper than coal(should be cost and timelines). How much that multiplier would improve with Nuclear at 30-40money units/MWh?
“ In comparison, solar and wind contribute $1.19, while fossil fuels generate only $0.65 per dollar.” I am having trouble understanding this claim. Does this mean we are losing money by using fossil fuels ($1 invested equals $.65 GDP)? I would love to see the inputs that drive this conclusion. The Fossil fuel industry is THE industry that enables industry. Without fossil fuels, you can’t even attempt this alternative energy transition. No diesel for mining, no coal for steel production, no oil to make plastics or lubrication oil for turbines, no nat gas for making concrete. Fossil fuels are the economy and therefore our GDP. Even if we go 100% nuclear for electricity, we will still need fossil fuels since electricity accounts for only about 20% of total US energy demand.
When trying to explain this to my friends I'd use the example of buying a beer in a pub. One place advertises the cost at £2 the other at £5. They go to the £2 pub and are horrified to find out they are only getting the hops. No processing, no additives, no glass to drink from etc etc. When everything is factored in the beer is £30 because everything else is done in an adhoc, inefficient way. Isaac Orr has done some good work on this as has Douglas Pollock
My colleague Mitch and I have been calculating the “Always On” cost of electricity from wind and solar for years. I think your readers will enjoy this article we wrote on the cost of nuclear vs wind and solar.
1) I don't understand why nuclear has a bigger multiplier than coal and gas?
2) also I'm not sure if full systems cost is the best measure either. Because coal and nuclear can't meet 100 percent of grid demand either. They also need backup usually with the use of gas and hydro. Although batteries can bring down the full systems costs of coal and nuclear because it turns inflexible sources into flexible ones.
That first chart seems a bit misleading. Understandably System Costs are in addition to LCOE i.e. Generation Costs, though *Full* System costs includes generation costs I would have thought. Also the LFSCOE in one jurisdiction shouldn't be added the the LFSCOE of any other jurisdiction.
Must-read breakdown of the right way to measure the cost of renewable energy.
Great writing! People use LCOE as a gospel trying to prove that nuclear is dead and not needed anymore with so much cheaper W&S. Contrary to intuition that something is off, looking at countries with high penetration of W&S and price of power there. Guess it is not necessarily the problem of LCOE itself but abuse of reading to much out of that(with agendas).
The multiplier factor is amazing and we all should spread that knowledge from the rooftops. If only nuclear costs would go back to being clearly cheaper than coal(should be cost and timelines). How much that multiplier would improve with Nuclear at 30-40money units/MWh?
“ In comparison, solar and wind contribute $1.19, while fossil fuels generate only $0.65 per dollar.” I am having trouble understanding this claim. Does this mean we are losing money by using fossil fuels ($1 invested equals $.65 GDP)? I would love to see the inputs that drive this conclusion. The Fossil fuel industry is THE industry that enables industry. Without fossil fuels, you can’t even attempt this alternative energy transition. No diesel for mining, no coal for steel production, no oil to make plastics or lubrication oil for turbines, no nat gas for making concrete. Fossil fuels are the economy and therefore our GDP. Even if we go 100% nuclear for electricity, we will still need fossil fuels since electricity accounts for only about 20% of total US energy demand.
When trying to explain this to my friends I'd use the example of buying a beer in a pub. One place advertises the cost at £2 the other at £5. They go to the £2 pub and are horrified to find out they are only getting the hops. No processing, no additives, no glass to drink from etc etc. When everything is factored in the beer is £30 because everything else is done in an adhoc, inefficient way. Isaac Orr has done some good work on this as has Douglas Pollock
LCOE was invented by people who don’t understand EROEI.
My colleague Mitch and I have been calculating the “Always On” cost of electricity from wind and solar for years. I think your readers will enjoy this article we wrote on the cost of nuclear vs wind and solar.
https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/why-nuclear-is-cheaper-than-wind?r=ibyre
https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-oldest-commercial-wind-farm-to-close-as-cost-of-repowering-is-too-high/
1) I don't understand why nuclear has a bigger multiplier than coal and gas?
2) also I'm not sure if full systems cost is the best measure either. Because coal and nuclear can't meet 100 percent of grid demand either. They also need backup usually with the use of gas and hydro. Although batteries can bring down the full systems costs of coal and nuclear because it turns inflexible sources into flexible ones.
That first chart seems a bit misleading. Understandably System Costs are in addition to LCOE i.e. Generation Costs, though *Full* System costs includes generation costs I would have thought. Also the LFSCOE in one jurisdiction shouldn't be added the the LFSCOE of any other jurisdiction.