Ex: Deloitte & Merrill Lynch. World-class Investment Research. Author: Harvesting Financial Prosperity: Professional Investor. Research focus: AI, hyper-scale data centers & Quantum computing.
You are grossly misinformed about the actual cost of an energy system. LCOE [Levelized energy cost] is a microeconomic view of energy costs. It includes the cost of building the solar project, the costs of operation, and the cost of fuel. What LCOE does not consider are the system costs of an energy system, such as the cost of land, the cost of adding high-voltage transmission lines, the cost of storage, such as batteries, and the cost of backup energy, usually gas turbines, to run when weather conditions, such as clouds, hinder solar grid effectiveness. Nor does it consider the cost of balancing the load to the grid or managing the grid's frequency. Additionally, energy system costs should include the cost of recycling, for example, all the solar panels after ten years, when they need repowering or replaced by newer solar panels due to technological improvements. The (LCOE) metric only captures a fraction of the actual cost picture. In response to your claim that solar energy is the "cheapest" form of energy, you offer only microeconomic, oversimplified analyses that do not tell the complete story. LCOE also does not consider: Lifetime and Replacement Costs: Nuclear plants typically operate for 60-80 years. Solar panels generally require replacement after 10-20 years, with significant performance degradation after 10 years. Solar inverters need replacement every 10-15 years. The replacement costs for solar infrastructure must be factored into long-term economic analyses. Realized energy: Nuclear power plants in the United States operate consistently at 93% of their gross capacity, providing reliable baseload power. Solar installations typically operate at 25-35% capacity and are intermittent. This means that 1GW of nuclear capacity produces at least 3X more electricity than 1GW of solar capacity over any given period. Land use: Nuclear power requires approximately 1 square mile to generate 1 GW, while a typical solar farm needs 50-75 square miles to generate the same capacity. Nuclear energy has a lower environmental footprint and also has lower transmission infrastructure requirements. System Costs Matter: A fair comparison of energy systems should consider integration costs, such as grid modifications for intermittency, battery storage, and new transmission lines. Nuclear plants can be located near population centers, minimizing transmission needs. Environmental Considerations: Nuclear power generates minimal, well-managed waste, whereas solar panel manufacturing relies on coal and extensive mining for rare earth elements. Additionally, solar panels pose increasing environmental challenges for end-of-life disposal. Conclusion: Claims about grid solar being the "cheapest" energy source ignore crucial factors. A comprehensive analysis must consider total system costs, reliability requirements, land use, and environmental impacts. Energy policy requires careful analysis beyond simple LCOE comparisons.
Ingegnere Industriale: Ingegneria Meccanica Aeronautica - Industria 4.0 - Project Management: certificato PRINCE2® Foundation
“Il fotovoltaico ha il costo dell'elettricità più basso di tutti. Il nucleare no. La strada è questa, non il nucleare ” Quante volte abbiamo sentito questa frase? Quante volte abbiamo ribattuto che il costo livellato dell'elettricità (LCoE) è una metrica inadatta a definire il costo totale dell'elettricità di una tecnologia e ancor meno il suo prezzo finale? Quante volte abbiamo spiegato che un sistema a forte penetrazione di rinnovabili non programmabili (FRNP) deve necessariamente contemplare i costi di rete per bilanciamento e backup dovuti alla loro intermittenza? Quante volte abbiamo spiegato i problemi di saturazione per le FRNP, per cui il valore marginale dei kWh in eccesso decresce progressivamente, inversamente al loro costo marginale che invece aumenta? Quante volte abbiamo indicato il Value Adjusted Levelized Cost of Electricity (VALCoE) e il system LCoE come metodi più adatti per stimare il costo dell'elettricità di ogni tecnologia messa in rete? I promotori della tesi di inizio post, “FRNP economiche e nucleare no”, usano un grafico dal report di un fondo di investimenti pesantemente impegnato nelle rinnovabili, LAZARD, che mette come disclaimer in ogni pagina la non validità scientifico finanziaria del rapporto stesso. Oltre questo, c'è una cosa ben più importante che omettono sempre ma che invece è presente nei rapporti LAZARD: Il costo dell'elettricità da rinnovabili non programmabili comprensivo dei costi di compensazione dell'intermittenza! Il rapporto LAZARD infatti, dopo aver indicato gli ormai noti valori del semplice LCoE per le diverse tecnologie, mostra i costi complessivi dei principali sistemi FRNP nelle reti elettriche statunitensi di maggior significatività In figura si vedono i costi al 2023 e quelli al 2024 per impianti utility scale fotovoltaici, eolici e fotovoltaici con accumulo È ben visibile la componente dei costi di sistema per compensare l'intermittenza delle FRNP, per cui in diverse reti elettriche il costo finale del kWh da queste tecnologie è nettamente superiore al costo massimo dell'elettricità da impianti a gas a ciclo combinato I meravigliosi 45 $/MWh del fotovoltaico scopriamo che sono riferiti alla rete californiana (CAISO) e che in realtà il costo completo è 153 $/MWh, che diventa 162 $/MWh se l'impianto è abbinato ad un sistema di accumulo. Scopriamo anche che in un anno sia il LCoE sia i costi di rete sono aumentati, con nuovi casi in cui le FRNP hanno superato la soglia del gas (ad es. fotovoltaico + accumulo nel PJM). Si vede chiaramente che all'aumentare della penetrazione di FRNP il loro costo a MWh aumenta, lievitando rispetto al semplice LCoE Per qualche motivo i soliti esperti si fermano all'inizio del report, prendendo solo ciò che gli fa comodo. La realtà, quella che arriva in bolletta al consumatore, è ben diversa Meritiamo più serietà. Servono le rinnovabili, ma smettetela di metterle in contrasto con il nucleare. È sbagliato. È falso. È fango. Basta #serietà #energia
LCOE does not consider: Lifetime and Replacement Costs: Nuclear plants typically operate for 60-80 years. while grid solar panels generally require replacement after 10-20 years, w/ significant performance degradation after 10 years. Realized energy: Nuclear power plants in the United States operate consistently at 93% of their gross capacity, while grid solar installations typically operate at 25-35% capacity. So, 1GW of nuclear capacity produces at least 3X more electricity than 1GW of solar capacity over any timeframe. Land use: Nuclear power requires approximately 1 square mile to generate 1 GW, while a typical solar farm needs 50-75 square miles to generate the same capacity. Nuclear energy has a lower environmental footprint. System Costs: A comparison of energy systems must consider grid modifications for intermittency, battery storage, & new transmission lines. Environmental Considerations: Nuclear power generates minimal, well-managed waste, whereas solar panel manufacturing relies on coal and extensive mining for rare earth elements. Additionally, solar panels pose increasing environmental challenges for disposal. Conclusion: Claims about grid solar being the "cheapest" energy source ignore crucial factors.
LCOE [Levelized energy cost] is a microeconomic view of energy costs. It includes the cost of building the solar project, the costs of operation, and the cost of fuel. What LCOE does not consider are the system costs of an energy system, such as the cost of land, the cost of adding high-voltage transmission lines, the cost of storage, such as batteries, and the cost of backup energy, usually gas turbines, to run when weather conditions, such as clouds, hinder solar grid effectiveness. Nor does it consider the cost of balancing the load to the grid or managing the grid's frequency. Additionally, energy system costs should include the cost of recycling, for example, all the solar panels after ten years, when they need repowering or replaced by newer solar panels due to technological improvements. The (LCOE) metric only captures a fraction of the actual cost picture. In response to your claim that solar energy is the "cheapest" form of energy, you offer only microeconomic, oversimplified analyses that do not tell the complete story.
Brent Johnson, MBA my post explains exactly what you said here. The claim "PV cheaper, Nuclear not" it's not mine and the post is an explanation in order to break it. Just as you did here. I agree with you, totally
Ex: Deloitte & Merrill Lynch. World-class Investment Research. Author: Harvesting Financial Prosperity: Professional Investor. Research focus: AI, hyper-scale data centers & Quantum computing.
2moMy apologies. I was reading the translation, and came to conclusions too soon. You make good points. I have seen way too many posts on LCOE, as is it were a sound basis of comparing energy systems, and I overreacted. My apologies. This did help me organize my thoughts and I thank you for that. We are on the same side...