Two articles with contrasting views of the future showed up in Utility Dive this week. The first was an opinion piece by an MIT professor referencing a study he coauthored comparing the costs of an electricity network where renewables supply more than 40% of generation compared to using advanced nuclear power. However, the report’s analysis relied on two key assumptions:
- Current battery storage costs are about $300/kW-hr and will remain static into the future.
- Current nuclear technology costs about $76 per MWh and advanced nuclear technology can achieve costs of $50 per MWh.
The second article immediately refuted the first assumption in the MIT study. A report from BloombergNEF found that average battery storage prices fell to $156/kW-hr in 2019, and projected further decreases to $100/kW-hr by 2024.
The reason that this price drop is so important is that, as the MIT study pointed out, renewables will be producing excess power at certain times and underproducing during other peak periods. MIT assumes that system operators will have to curtail renewable generation during low load periods and run gas plants to fill in at the peaks. (MIT pointed to California curtailing about 190 GWh in April. However, that added only 0.1% to the CAISO’s total generation cost.) But if storage is so cheap, along with inexpensive solar and wind, additional renewable capacity can be built to store power for the early evening peaks. This could enable us to free ourselves from having to plan for system peak periods and focus largely on energy production.
MIT’s second assumption is not validated by recent experience. As I posted earlier, the about to be completed Vogtle nuclear plant will cost ratepayers in Georgia and South Carolina about $100 per MWh–more than 30% more than the assumption used by MIT. PG&E withdrew its relicensing request for Diablo Canyon because the utility projected the cost to be $100 to $120 per MWh. Another recent study found nuclear costs worldwide exceeded $100/MWh and it takes an average of a decade finish a plant.
Another group at MIT issued a report earlier intended to revive interest in using nuclear power. I’m not sure of why MIT is so focused on this issue and continuing to rely on data and projections that are clearly outdated or wrong, but it does have one of the leading departments in nuclear science and engineering. It’s sad to see that such a prestigious institution is allowing its economic self interest to cloud its vision of the future.
What do you see in the future of relying on renewables? Is it economically feasible to build excess renewable capacity that can supply enough storage to run the system the rest of the day? How would the costs of this system compare to nuclear power at actual current costs? Will advanced nuclear power drop costs by 50%? Let us know your thoughts and add any useful references.
Pingback: Obstacles to nuclear power, but how much do we really need it? | Economics Outside the Cube
Pingback: Do small modular reactors (SMR) hold real promise? | Economics Outside the Cube
A summary of a 2021 report on stagnation of the nuclear power industry: https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/4114830/posts/183121
Pingback: What “Electrify Everything” has wrong about “reduce, reuse, recycle” | Economics Outside the Cube
Black & Veatch released this rather simplistic promotion of nuclear power for decarbonization. It focuses on solar and biofuels while ignoring the complementarity of wind power output with solar. It also ignores the likely potential of EVs to provide the required round the clock storage with a much as 300% excess capacity. And it ignores that it will take at least 10 years to get substantial additional nuclear capacity on line given the typical construction schedules. https://h7g7q8k5.stackpathcdn.com/cdn/ff/fOLR9JFZwSF4_mhsHhCesmDs_YE8IbFqd_8e_UT7Tss/1638472482/public/2021-12/SS_Nuclear_Series%201_Clean%20Ambition_Digital.pdf
Pingback: What to do about Diablo Canyon? | Economics Outside the Cube
Another response to the MIT study, pointing out that new nuclear must cost less than $76/MWH to be a viable alternative to a renewables portfolio. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/cant-never-have-too-much-fun-or-too-much-wind-and-solar/570295/