The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble

> Nuclear AND Renewable energy It cannot be done because it financially condemns new nuclear plants. "The rates at which conventional power plants are utilized will continue to decrease as competitive pressure from near-zero marginal cost solar photovoltaic and onshore wind power, and battery energy storage continue to grow exponentially worldwide." Eye-opening video: [VIDEO]

I don't think there is much point is continuing this discussion, though, as a PhD materials chemist with an MBA, I could literally write dissertations on the future costs of solar and storage. Instead, I'll leave you with two YouTube videos that outline the future of distributed energy and the fate of centralized generation. [LINK] [VIDEO] Peace

With such a (realistic) approach nuclear is condemned because its production costs (LCOE: [LINK] ) are higher than renewables' (and the gap is enlarging). Therefore renewables will be preferably used. Nuclear gets more expensive as it is more sparsely used: this feedback loop will widen the gap. [VIDEO] With time renewables production will get less an less intermittent thanks to a more and more adequate spreading, to a mix (wind, solar...), to storage (hydrogen...) and an overly-expensive nuclear will become useless. [LINK]

The LCOE of nuclear is very sensitive to its capacity factor. Nuclear costs are set to skyrocket because for a larger and larger part of the day they will not be profitable as renewables undercut the price of power. With a lower and lower capacity factor, new nuclear plants will never pay for themselves. [VIDEO]

The production cost of 'renewable' electricity (RE) is increasingly lower than that of nuclear. So when they produce, they are and will be preferred. This will reduce the effective load factor of nuclear power and therefore increase its production cost (it is only profitable with a high load factor), with a strong feedback. It gets worse because, on the technical level and despite some progress, nuclear power cannot (due to technical limitation and for safety-related reasons) adjust its production ("load following") to always exactly match demand. This will promote the deployment of an RE system based on a continental a mix (wind, solar, etc.), smart grid, clean backup (green hydrogen), storage, etc. which will reduce the variability of its production (intermittency effect) so nuclear power will be less and less useful and more and more expensive. The effect on nuclear is easy to predict. [VIDEO]

'Advanced nuclear' neglects the last developments (the Vogtle nuclear plant project hugely over-budget and late [LINK] , cancelled plans (Montagorda, V. C. Summer, River Band, Callaway...). Even the newest pipe dream in town (SMR) already had its first rebuff ( [LINK] ). Last but not least... there is no running project. Therefore writing "US nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from ~100 GW in 2024 to ~300 GW by 2050." in a title is for sure easy, however there is now sign of such potential to become anything else. As long as the source is not consuming any fuel nor producing much waste any EROI greater than one seems OK to me. > why they assume 4h storage? AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). > What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale, as this is useful whatever the type of sources (even if it is mainly nuclear), then to benefit from diverses wind (or even solar) regimes. > overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time Not with an electric fleet of vehicles, to begin with. Green hydrogen will also absorb part of it (for industrial applications, electric backup...). > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies This will kill nuclear (see [VIDEO] ).

you sure it neglects vogtle? > AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). - lol, kinda interesting assumptions, especially considering that it'll still imply additional costs > AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale - lol, at such scales that sounds as a bigger pipedream than cheap h2 emission free generation > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies > This will kill nuclear (see [VIDEO] ). This will kill basically any peaker plant be that fossil, hydro or nuclear. That's kinda the point. With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity of both production, peaker and storage that'll be rarely used. No matter the technology - any of it will get extremely expensive the higher the renewable share will get. Even Norway starts facing similar problems since they import cheap renewable in peak production, meaning their hydro is earning less

> Renewables are outpacing nuclear at such a pace that you could legitimately wonder why to bother with such projects at all. Indeed, especially as renewable will more and more eat into nuclear 'baseload', lowering its load factor and therefore raising its total production cost. [VIDEO]