Since it’s coming up a lot, here [0] is a good resource on levelized energy costs (i.e. per kWh).
Energy costs are a tricky subject but in general new unsubsidized solar/wind is about the same cost or cheaper than operating existing nuclear (leaving out the issue that nuclear receives subsidies, which tilts things further in favor of renewables). And existing solar/wind operating costs are small, so their energy can be priced very low on day ahead and hour ahead markets, making it hard for fossil/nuclear to cover their operating costs.
But renewables are intermittent, and adding storage pushes the costs of renewable + storage above existing nuclear operating costs and most new build nuclear options. And storage isn’t lossless—I wouldn’t bet on those batteries holding charge affordably for more than a couple days.
We’ll probably muddle through with fossil + renewables for a while, which is the cheapest combo. When we get to the point of trying to take the last 20% of the fossil down is when we might regret not trying harder with nuclear, and in the meantime nukes will continue to struggle with selling energy at a competitive price. But hey, we’ve got another ten years until we phase out the last of the fossil (at the earliest) so maybe some storage cost declines will make it easier. Here’s hoping. Nukes are getting more expensive not less, so I don’t have much expectation they’ll be in the generation mix by the end of the century.
[0] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Energy costs are a tricky subject but in general new unsubsidized solar/wind is about the same cost or cheaper than operating existing nuclear (leaving out the issue that nuclear receives subsidies, which tilts things further in favor of renewables). And existing solar/wind operating costs are small, so their energy can be priced very low on day ahead and hour ahead markets, making it hard for fossil/nuclear to cover their operating costs.
But renewables are intermittent, and adding storage pushes the costs of renewable + storage above existing nuclear operating costs and most new build nuclear options. And storage isn’t lossless—I wouldn’t bet on those batteries holding charge affordably for more than a couple days.
We’ll probably muddle through with fossil + renewables for a while, which is the cheapest combo. When we get to the point of trying to take the last 20% of the fossil down is when we might regret not trying harder with nuclear, and in the meantime nukes will continue to struggle with selling energy at a competitive price. But hey, we’ve got another ten years until we phase out the last of the fossil (at the earliest) so maybe some storage cost declines will make it easier. Here’s hoping. Nukes are getting more expensive not less, so I don’t have much expectation they’ll be in the generation mix by the end of the century.
[0] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...