Lets compare the $36.9B [1] spent on Vogtle with the same money spent on renewables and storage:
Batteries:
- $63/kWh [2] installed and serviced for 20 years = $0.063B per GWh
Large-scale solar:
- A range of $850-$1400/kW [3] = $0.85B - $1.4B per GW
- Capacity factor of 15-30%
Say $1B per GW and 20% for easy round numbers.
Large-scale onshore wind:
- $1300 - $1900/kW [3] = $1.3B - $1.9B per GW
- Capacity factor 30-55%
So say $1.5B/GW and a capacity factor of 40%.
Nuclear power has a capacity factor of ~85% so to match Vogtle's new reactors we need to get to 2.234 GW * 0.85 = 1.9 GW
Solar power:
- 1.9/0.2 = 9.5 GW solar power = $9.5B
Wind power:
- 1.9/0.4 = 4.75 GW wind power = $9B
Compared to Vogtle's $37B we have $28B left to spend on batteries.
- $28B/$0.063B = 444 GWh
444 GWh is the equivalent to running Vogtle for.... 444 GWh/1.9 GW = 233 hours or 9.8 days.
This even ignores nuclear powers O&M costs which are quite substantial. By not having to pay the O&M costs and instead saving them each year after about 20 years we have enough to rebuild the renewable plant.
Thank you for providing numbers that guide your thinking.
> - $63/kWh [2] installed and serviced for 20 years = $0.063B per GWh
The Lazard source does provide costs for storage on page 44, ranging from about 3x to 6x the cost of that Chinese tender process. Using these numbers gives a rather different picture with storage of between 3.25 days and 1.6 days, insufficient to make solar really work. Alternatively the fair comparison would be within China.
Another data-point would be the UAE's attempt to firm solar; $6B for 1GW effective baseload output with 18GWh of storage [1]. So the cost of Vogtle could buy 6 of these, providing perhaps 3 or 4 days worth of storage.
With Vogtles $36.9B we are able to build the equivalent supply in renewables (in TWh) and 10 days of storage at Vogtles 2.2 GWe output.
Spending nuclear money on storage leads to the same thing.
And it puts in context just have horrifically expensive new built western nuclear power is.