6 ms·

We have vastly moved the scientific frontier of modeling our energy systems since 2019. All those analyses find that renewable grids are far cheaper than if in

We have vastly moved the scientific frontier of modeling our energy systems since 2019. All those analyses find that renewable grids are far cheaper than if involving new built nuclear power. Here are two modern papers on the subject: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/GenCost_2025-26_Final_Report_20260715.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544226009837 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422... I find it telling that you call it an ”economic problem” and ”intermittents”. It seems like you have an axe to grind, but not much backing your standpoint anymore. So you’ve fallen to using derogatory. Those same fossil fuels have the same economic ”crowding” out problem when cheaper sources in the same class delivers. A single cycle gas turbine would love to get paid running at 100% all year around. It doesn’t because CCGT plants with higher efficiency undercut it. Just like what happens in renewables. They start crowding out each other. Storage steps in and solves the peaks. More renewables come online until they ”crowd each other out” and around we go. That’s called being a market. Which you nuke fans seems deathly afraid of given the economics of new built nuclear power.

chickenbig 17d ago
> https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge... It is interesting to see how large-scale nuclear is handled. 120% and 60% increase in cost for FOAK and NOAK (Table 2-1), plus no learning rate for nuclear construction beyond that (Table C.2). Interest rates during construction unfairly penalise nuclear as "GenCost uses the simplest way which is to increase the capital cost by the assumed discount rate raised to the power of the construction time" (page 97)." This results in ~20% increase in capital costs against other simple scenarios like equal construction costs across each year. 30 year plant lifetime, rather than say 60 years. That results in ~10% increase in capital costs. > Those same fossil fuels have the same economic ”crowding” out problem when cheaper sources in the same class delivers. That line of reasoning only works if there is something to make one plant more expensive to produce electricity than another. For natural gas the cost of fuel is far greater than the CAPEX. For intermittents only the variable OPEX can distinguish between generators, which is mostly for wind and I guess most severely for offshore wind. Cannibalisation is the big problem for intermittents. The notion of succession doesn't work for them.
- ViewTrick1002 17d ago
  Now you’re desperately trying to rationalize new built nuclear power. GenCost has an amazing FAQ section you evidently either ignored, or did not peruse. For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws: > Why is the economic life used in LCOE calculations instead of the fulloperational life? > The LCOE calculation converts all upfront and ongoing costs to annual costs which is then divided by annual production. The capital cost component of a technology is converted to an annual repayment to the debt and equity providers. The annual repayment amount is determined using the economic life and the weighted average cost of capital. The economic life is shorter than the asset life for some technologies such as coal, nuclear and hydro. Some stakeholders have queried why this is so. > Debt and equity providers require a shorter payback period than the total asset life for some technologies to avoid the risk that part of the equipment might fail or might need new investment (sometimes called refurbishment or extension costs) to keep operating safely and reliably. To determine the economic life, debt and equity providers might look to the warranties provided with the equipment. They might also look at the typical timing of refurbishments or life extensions for that technology. The economic life is an input provided by the engineering firm that AEMO commissions each year as an input to GenCost. > Some stakeholders suggested that coal and nuclear could access special financing arrangements to move the economic life closer to the asset life. However, our preference is not to introduce special arrangements for technologies where there is limited Australian evidence. A common approach to the LCOE calculation is important to maintain comparability. The 2024-25 report does explore the impact of longer capital recovery periods in Section 2. It finds there is no significant benefit from the longer operational life of nuclear relative to shorter-lived technologies whose costs have been falling over time. Even looking at China and South Korea they see essentially zero learning effects across plants after the FOAK build. Small ones at the same plant. Crying about FOAK vs NOAK is not even close to solving the absolutely stupidly large subsidies new built nuclear power needs. Again with the loaded terms. Sad. The market is limited until for example Jevons paradox expands it. Which will never happen with new built nuclear power due to how expensive the electricity is, that leads to energy poverty for generations instead. But I digress. Look at Texas or California. About all new renewable projects in those markets are coupled with storage. What you call cannabilisation, and try to paint like the end of the world, is simply the market working. Now pure renewable projects aren’t enough, instead you need to sell the electricity when the consumers demand it. In just a year or two storage has massively smoothed out the price swings in Texas. But again, that would require curiosity rather than desperately trying to poke holes the study already answered. Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?

chickenbig 17d ago

> https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge... It is interesting to see how large-scale nuclear is handled. 120% and 60% increase in cost for FOAK and NOAK (Table 2-1), plus no learning rate for nuclear construction beyond that (Table C.2). Interest rates during construction unfairly penalise nuclear as "GenCost uses the simplest way which is to increase the capital cost by the assumed discount rate raised to the power of the construction time" (page 97)." This results in ~20% increase in capital costs against other simple scenarios like equal construction costs across each year. 30 year plant lifetime, rather than say 60 years. That results in ~10% increase in capital costs. > Those same fossil fuels have the same economic ”crowding” out problem when cheaper sources in the same class delivers. That line of reasoning only works if there is something to make one plant more expensive to produce electricity than another. For natural gas the cost of fuel is far greater than the CAPEX. For intermittents only the variable OPEX can distinguish between generators, which is mostly for wind and I guess most severely for offshore wind. Cannibalisation is the big problem for intermittents. The notion of succession doesn't work for them.

ViewTrick1002 17d ago
Now you’re desperately trying to rationalize new built nuclear power. GenCost has an amazing FAQ section you evidently either ignored, or did not peruse. For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws: > Why is the economic life used in LCOE calculations instead of the fulloperational life? > The LCOE calculation converts all upfront and ongoing costs to annual costs which is then divided by annual production. The capital cost component of a technology is converted to an annual repayment to the debt and equity providers. The annual repayment amount is determined using the economic life and the weighted average cost of capital. The economic life is shorter than the asset life for some technologies such as coal, nuclear and hydro. Some stakeholders have queried why this is so. > Debt and equity providers require a shorter payback period than the total asset life for some technologies to avoid the risk that part of the equipment might fail or might need new investment (sometimes called refurbishment or extension costs) to keep operating safely and reliably. To determine the economic life, debt and equity providers might look to the warranties provided with the equipment. They might also look at the typical timing of refurbishments or life extensions for that technology. The economic life is an input provided by the engineering firm that AEMO commissions each year as an input to GenCost. > Some stakeholders suggested that coal and nuclear could access special financing arrangements to move the economic life closer to the asset life. However, our preference is not to introduce special arrangements for technologies where there is limited Australian evidence. A common approach to the LCOE calculation is important to maintain comparability. The 2024-25 report does explore the impact of longer capital recovery periods in Section 2. It finds there is no significant benefit from the longer operational life of nuclear relative to shorter-lived technologies whose costs have been falling over time. Even looking at China and South Korea they see essentially zero learning effects across plants after the FOAK build. Small ones at the same plant. Crying about FOAK vs NOAK is not even close to solving the absolutely stupidly large subsidies new built nuclear power needs. Again with the loaded terms. Sad. The market is limited until for example Jevons paradox expands it. Which will never happen with new built nuclear power due to how expensive the electricity is, that leads to energy poverty for generations instead. But I digress. Look at Texas or California. About all new renewable projects in those markets are coupled with storage. What you call cannabilisation, and try to paint like the end of the world, is simply the market working. Now pure renewable projects aren’t enough, instead you need to sell the electricity when the consumers demand it. In just a year or two storage has massively smoothed out the price swings in Texas. But again, that would require curiosity rather than desperately trying to poke holes the study already answered. Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?