585
Solar + Battery (covering 97% of demand) is now cheaper than coal and nuclear (ember-energy.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
101 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

I'm using table 1.

PV panels alone produce 43g/kWh, batteries 33.

Nuclear (light-water or pressurized) are at 12.

We're talking complete life cycle analyses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    To tack onto that: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

    When you account for land use in the entire life cycle from mining resources to disposal at end of life cycle, nuclear uses a quarter of the land of rooftop cadmium panels and a tenth of silicon panels.

    Offshore wind is the only thing that gets close and even that has ecological and commercial concerns.

    If you're pro-stable and sustainable ecological systems, nuclear based power grid is a no brainer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Yet breeder plants would be even more sustainable in theory, yet if anyone tries to research them right now and doesn't already have nuclear bombs they may fall into the same situation Iran just did.

    Less fuel use, Less waste. Requires more technological testing/improvements long term, but everyone is worried about people weaponizing higher enrichment uranium from an outside perspective.. I could be wrong

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent