New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
11 Comments
A peer-reviewed study using Denmark as a case study has found that renewable energy portfolios outperform nuclear power on total system cost in the modeled future integrated Danish energy system, once the expenses of grid balancing, storage, and sector coupling are included in the comparison.
The “SLCOE – system-based LCOE for comparing energy technologies in different systems” study, recently published in Energy and led by Henrik Lund of Aalborg University, introduces system-based levelized cost of energy (SLCOE) as an alternative to the standard LCOE metric. LCOE only measures the cost of producing a unit of electricity from a given technology, but SLCOE adds the cost of integrating that technology into the wider energy system. The co-author list includes 10 other researchers.
“While the LCOE is a function of the technology itself, the SLCOE is a function of both the technology and the energy system context in which it operates,” the paper states.
In today’s electricity-only system, system costs are high across all technologies when each is modeled as the sole supply source. Solar carries a combined SLCOE of approximately €/MWh in that context – not because PV is inherently expensive to integrate, the authors argue, but because any single technology faces steep system costs without the flexibility options a fully coupled energy system provides. Nuclear reaches approximately €141 ($166.3)/MWh in the same electricity-only context. The least-cost mix of offshore wind, solar, and gas combined-cycle turbines reaches approximately €66/MWh.
In a future climate-neutral integrated system, which is the paper’s central comparison, nuclear’s SLCOE is approximately €100/MWh. The least-cost mix of offshore wind and PV reaches about €46/MWh. Offshore wind alone also reaches about €46/MWh. Onshore wind reaches about €106/MWh, while solar reaches about €178/MWh as a standalone technology. Its cost falls sharply when combined with wind in the least-cost portfolio.
Under all scenarios in the future integrated system, renewables outperform nuclear on SLCOE. Nuclear does not appear in the least-cost solution under any assumption set tested.
Okay, but again, it’s not always about what’s cheapest. It’s about what we need. For example, if we need base load because we still don’t have enough storage, we should build a nuke, not a 10 turbine cogen gas unit. And that’s what’s getting built. Gas is being used like crazy all over for base load. I would prefer we not emit. I prefer nuclear. I don’t care what it costs as long as it’s feasible to at least subsidize. And it is.
That’s because renewables are deployed in best case scenario environments where they make economic sense.
Try to cover full grid base load, see how much that actually costs in practice and then report back on that. Hint: batteries and energy storage in general is EXPENSIVE.
This comparison may appear be sensible on the surface but it’s really apples and oranges.
In Denmark. Now do it with full transmission costs in a geographic area larger than Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
“Hey! We made some numbers up and they show exactly what we wanted!”
Cool, but what do we do on days the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining? There are a lot of days like that.
Nuclear power is the only climate change answer then.
everything is cheaper than nuclear power. Nuclear power’s benefit was never “its cheap”. the benefit is that its clean AND reliable. its the best of both worlds but that comes at a cost
That’s a cute stat, now control for subsidies and regulations.
Imagine a three layer cake. The top is wavy, and the bottom is as flat as the plate. The bottom layer is coal and nuclear power. The top layer is peaker plants supplied by natural gas. The middle layer is renewables. The waviness is a reflection of dynamic demand throughout the course of a day.
The middle layer is delicious and cheap, and everyone wants more of it. The top layer is expensive, but necessary. The top layer easily accommodates the growth and shrink of the middle layer, and nobody minds because it’s just coconut anyway.
The bottom layer can only be shaved down from the top. Nuclear plants don’t change their output quickly or efficiently. Interestingly, they actually benefit from increased transmission as much as renewables do.
Of course, you wouldn’t guess it based on vertical integration of cake manufacturers and cake distributors, because they have perverse interests when combined, particularly a preference for adding more coconut.
Well of course but if you want a robust energy sector major countries that have stable weather patterns should do nuclear. And their military should be going to protecting that not imperialism
A hot air balloon is cheaper than a passenger jet but only one can be controlled to a destination