6 ms·
To make the costs more comparable, in the report he mentions, they estimate 2.5% per year of the installed battery capacity cost as the ongoing maintenance cos
by Vindicis 3y ago
To make the costs more comparable, in the report he mentions, they estimate 2.5% per year of the installed battery capacity
cost as the ongoing maintenance costs. And, the batteries have an 85% efficiency rating meaning they'd need 92 gwh of
installed battery capacity to meet the 75 gwh demand, so tack on an additional $4.25 billion so the battery cost which is now $23 billion.
Based on the lifetimes of these South Korean plants(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea),
I'm just going to use 40 years as the lifetime for these calculations as I couldn't find any numbers for how long
the UAE expects that plant to be operating regarding that operational costs of $20 billion which gives us:
Maintenance costs for solar of:
40 years x $23 billion x 2.5% = $23 billion
So now we're at a total current cost of $46 +7.5 = $53.5 billion for Solar vs. $45 billion for Nuclear.
Edit: Forgot the actual cost of the solar array that G80z said was $7.5 billion
- pydry 3y agoThe amount of solar/wind paired storage drops significantly if you take into account wind energy's anti correlation with solar, demand shaping and overproduction. It isnt just a matter of getting 2GW of solar and getting enough batteries to supply 2GW through the night.