Some key insights from the article:

Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.

  • booly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Vogtle added 2 AP1000 reactors for $35 billion. Future deployments might be cheaper, but there’s a long way to go before it can compete with pretty much any other type of power generation.

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      They had to switch halfway through which is what added the cost that’s not a realistic cost per reactor

      • booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Ok, current projections are still for the next two AP1000s at Vogtle to be something like $10 billion. That’s just not cost competitive with solar/wind. And it’s also not very realistic to assume that there won’t be cost overruns on the next one, either. Complex engineering projects tend to run over.

        • BussyCat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Next two? After you mentioned it I tried googling and can’t find anything about current projections for new AP1000s at vogtle.