You forget one added fact - the solar plant will last 20 years, at which time it must be replaced.
The nuclear plant will last 60 years.
Hence the solar costs are actually triple what you are showing over 60 years. To put it another way, nuclear gets cheaper the longer time frame you look at.
Additionally, both the solar output and the battery capacity will begin slowly degrading immediately. By the time the 20th year rolls around, the generation and storage capacities will have declined ~15%. So in this scheme you need to overbuild even more so that the system actually performs to design capacity over its lifespan.
New nuclear designs will last 80-100 years.
And the cited land requirement for the solar installation? SEVENTY square miles??? !!! Insane.
I am campaigning against the term “renewables” because it is not remotely accurate. It’s part of the propaganda campaign, co-opting language that will be favorably received by the lightly-informed.
Although I’m a nuc by trade I see a significant flaw in the reasoning here. Per your analysis of nuclear ( “These assumptions frame the analysis within a practical, U.S.-specific context, ensuring relevance and accuracy” ) the nuc plant gets built for less than 9.5billion. There is no relevant data to suggest it can be done for that and plenty that says it will cost much more. INL NuScale cancellation, Vogtle and Summer debacles show significant inability to accurately assess cost and time horizons, or more likely the strategic misrepresentation of actual project costs. Double the price on the AP-1000 build and maybe recalculate for a more realistic analysis.
South Korea benefits from an industry that is heavily subsidized, infrastructure that has been maintained through continuous builds , a regulator that has turned a blind eye in the past - 2012 Kori 1 trip and fallout. I can’t prove it but I suspect the average citizen has very little leverage against approving siting and construction in SK. Not so in US with our ability to use the courts and legislators to kill nuclear ambitions.
The ABWR may look cheaper on paper but IMO would not be any different than AP1000 build in US. Materials, manpower and financing push US prices into 10k/kw. Last Energy has same problem all SMRs have in US: designs not approved by NRC with no chance of that speeding up in next 5 years, a supply chain that needs building, no experience in building even one yet. Doesn’t mean it wont happen but just not at the price buyers want or the speed AI developers would like.
So, why not build the ABWR rather than the AP1000 or 1400? Faster builds, load following, built on time and with a much lower budget? Japan built the first of a kind less expensive than the projected NOK for the AP1000. Another option, allow Last Energy to build their 20 MW units in the USA with minimal regulation. Yes, NuScale's costs are enormous now that the Aircraft impact rule forced a redesign. The original idea to build them in 6 packs or 12 packs as demand grew was very close to Last Energy's model.
You forget one added fact - the solar plant will last 20 years, at which time it must be replaced.
The nuclear plant will last 60 years.
Hence the solar costs are actually triple what you are showing over 60 years. To put it another way, nuclear gets cheaper the longer time frame you look at.
Additionally, both the solar output and the battery capacity will begin slowly degrading immediately. By the time the 20th year rolls around, the generation and storage capacities will have declined ~15%. So in this scheme you need to overbuild even more so that the system actually performs to design capacity over its lifespan.
New nuclear designs will last 80-100 years.
And the cited land requirement for the solar installation? SEVENTY square miles??? !!! Insane.
There is no such thing as "zero carbon", just like there is no such thing as "renewables".
This is due to to the Laws of Thermodynamics and Physics.
I am campaigning against the term “renewables” because it is not remotely accurate. It’s part of the propaganda campaign, co-opting language that will be favorably received by the lightly-informed.
Here here 👏. All processes are irreversible, we can only be more efficient.
Although I’m a nuc by trade I see a significant flaw in the reasoning here. Per your analysis of nuclear ( “These assumptions frame the analysis within a practical, U.S.-specific context, ensuring relevance and accuracy” ) the nuc plant gets built for less than 9.5billion. There is no relevant data to suggest it can be done for that and plenty that says it will cost much more. INL NuScale cancellation, Vogtle and Summer debacles show significant inability to accurately assess cost and time horizons, or more likely the strategic misrepresentation of actual project costs. Double the price on the AP-1000 build and maybe recalculate for a more realistic analysis.
What about the South Korean projects purportedly being built for much less than our NRC-impaired efforts?
South Korea benefits from an industry that is heavily subsidized, infrastructure that has been maintained through continuous builds , a regulator that has turned a blind eye in the past - 2012 Kori 1 trip and fallout. I can’t prove it but I suspect the average citizen has very little leverage against approving siting and construction in SK. Not so in US with our ability to use the courts and legislators to kill nuclear ambitions.
The ABWR may look cheaper on paper but IMO would not be any different than AP1000 build in US. Materials, manpower and financing push US prices into 10k/kw. Last Energy has same problem all SMRs have in US: designs not approved by NRC with no chance of that speeding up in next 5 years, a supply chain that needs building, no experience in building even one yet. Doesn’t mean it wont happen but just not at the price buyers want or the speed AI developers would like.
Maybe Chris Wright can fix the NRC.
So, why not build the ABWR rather than the AP1000 or 1400? Faster builds, load following, built on time and with a much lower budget? Japan built the first of a kind less expensive than the projected NOK for the AP1000. Another option, allow Last Energy to build their 20 MW units in the USA with minimal regulation. Yes, NuScale's costs are enormous now that the Aircraft impact rule forced a redesign. The original idea to build them in 6 packs or 12 packs as demand grew was very close to Last Energy's model.