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
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Vogtle’s numbers are incredibly biased considering they made an entire design and then had to redo it halfway through that’s not a realistic cost that can be expected for future projects. We also have vogtles design be approved now so that new plants can be built for a fraction of the cost. Also where did you see they did amortization of solar?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Also where did you see they did amortization of solar?

    I'm just familiar with Lazard's LCOE methodology. The linked paper talks about LCOE, so that's just how that particular cost analysis works.

  • source
  • parent