Schroedingersat

The difference is a solar farm consists of 4 million identical modules and a quarter billion identical cells. If a cell is faulty, it decreases output of that module by 2%. If a module is faulty it either decreases the string output by 5% or costs $80 and 15 minutes to replace. If many modules are found to have a long term fault later, repowering comes at a cost penalty of about 1c/kWh. Building terawatts of solar involves trillions of identical cells, and trillions of trials to practise making them cheaply with zero penalty for iteration.

A nuclear reactor consists of many thousands of bespoke parts. If one is faulty, at the very least the whole thing is shut down while millions are spent replacing it, or possibly it kills a lot of people. Building terawatts of nuclear involves making each part thousands of times, and the penalty for iteration is thousands of man hours for validation as well as potentially shutting down every power plant with that part. If there is a major systematic flaw you are out 5-20c/kWh and years of output.

Yes. The capacity factor is a blatant lie given that units 1 & 2 are about 60%, and the costs are an old estimate of overnight cost without escalation or inflation.

Comparing overnight costs to final all-in prices is one way nukebros love to lie.

You're also pretending operating costs don't exist.

You're also pretending that costs for a solar project in 2015-2019 are costs today. This is another blatant lie.

Longevity is another lie. The median and mean ages of the plants that actually get completed is around 30 years, not 60. The average for nuclear plants that are paid for is even lower because so many do not open at all.

Thankyou for demonstrating.

> But at the same time, it's kind of odd he didn't notice people from his own side peddling blatant lies.

Bit odd not to notice all the lies he's telling even after they're pointed out, he doubles down on them, and then they're disproven.

[flagged]

The idea that this hasn't been tried repeatedly is a myth.

You're amortising the cost over a time period that is in direct contradiction to reality, at an EAF that is in direct contradiction to reality at a cost of capital that doesn't reflect the likelihood of project failure or early closure. On top of excluding all the indirect subsidies.

€11bn for 1.6GW on a European nuke that will run about 70% of the time and statistically will close in around 30 years while costing $30/MWh for O&M is around 16c/kwh

> The local Wikipedia says nuclear ramps up or down at 5%/min. This is faster than any other method of generation.

How is paying extra to ramp at 5%/min once a day "faster than" being able to switch off in seconds and back on in a minute like a wind turbine, or turn on and off in milliseconds as many times as you like like a PV inverter or even stopping starting in minutes like a reciprocating or OCGT peaker or ramping 0-100% in minutes repeatedly like hydro?

Why do that, when you can just present the surplus/deficit coldest-sunniest day in late spring and pretend it is an essential aspect of all renewable generation?

You see, that's the greenwashing bit.

It's not made from water, it's made from fossil gas.

All these schemes to increase demand aren't about making electrolysers to replace existing grey hydrogen, they're ahout selling grey hydrogen.

Hydrogen has a GWP of 11.

Cube square law also makes small scale hydrogen storage more expensive than batteries.

Then you're back to limited niche uses, or needing expensive, leaky distribution.

The best use of hydrogen for seasonal arbitrage is making it into sponge iron and ammonia for steel and fertiliser then storing that. Then your seasonal-cadence variability is gone.

The mirai has worse range, has less power, is heavier, has less internal space, is bigger, requires more mining if rare minerals for fuel cells, lasts fewer miles before replacing the storage/fuel cell system, refuelling for daily use is much more cumbersome and it costs ten times as much to fuel as current gen EVs.

The supposed overwhelming advantage results in saving 20 minutes on a 1000km trip (if nobody else used the hydrogen station before you, otherwise fuelling times are the same).

With current state of the art batteries being put into next model cars that last bit goes away too.

In what possible world do hydrogen passenger cars have a future?

A laptop powerbank cost about as much as those and will run enough lighting to read for days.

Lower cost than that, there are C-grade prismatic cells. Usb/12V adapters exist for a single cell as well, although i'm not sure if they are in that form factor.

Rough service incandescent bulbs are exempt and will last decades driven at a quarter power.

Sure it's a special order, but it's a special case.