Technology

58061 readers

31 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

944

40% of US electricity is now emissions-free (arstechnica.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

215 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A coal power plant is rougly the same cost per GW as solar or wind, doesn't mean we should build more of them. I agree it's expensive, but so were solar and wind a couple decades ago. Government investment helped research, development, scaling up - imagine if that had been done in the '80s, we wouldn't be building natural gas plants right now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

A coal power plant is rougly the same cost per GW as solar or wind

Incorrect. Costs listed per KW of generation:

Coal power $4,074 (3.07 x the cost of solar PV and 2.37x the cost of onshore wind)
Wind power (onshore) $1,718
Solar photovoltaic $1,327

source

I agree it’s expensive, but so were solar and wind a couple decades ago. Government investment helped research, development, scaling up - imagine if that had been done in the '80s

The first commercial nuclear power plant in the USA came online in 1958. source That's 66 years ago. If time was going to make it cheaper we would have seen that by now. Instead the most recent reactors to come online, which occurred just this year, were projected to cost $14 billion and instead are cost $31 billion! Even worst, this isn't an entirely new nuclear power plant, its just two additional reactors at an existing operational plant. source

Nuclear just costs too much for what you get at the end.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Ah, perhaps my source was off. Thanks for the additional data.

But looking at it another way, nuclear is less than twice coal. Estimating the cost of that georgia plant would put it at $16-17B, so those overruns would be atypical.

But my main point on cost is that government investment has been lacking in nuclear compared to renewables: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/12/27/why-is-solar-energy-getting-250-times-more-in-federal-tax-credits-than-nuclear/?sh=4a783c3221cf

Without investment, it's going to stay just as expensive. And the main regulating body not having a mandate to develop the technology has just been holding us back.