By the end of 2027, not only will we have nearly 3.5 TW of installed solar capacity globally, China will have more than 1 TW.
➡️ 10 GW was passed in 2008
➡️ 100 GW was passed in 2012
➡️ 1 TW was passed in 2022.
➡️ 2 TW will be passed in 2025
➡️ 3 TW will be passed in 2027
Solar will be too cheap to meter. Who is going risk capital on nuclear when it takes 50 years to get a ROI, even longer in this high-interest rate environment?
I agree with almost all of this, but I'm skeptical solar (or any other power source) will ever be "too cheap to meter". The incentives just don't make sense to get us there. Power production frequently outstrips demand in Texas and California thanks to renewables, but the prices don't go to zero they go negative... and consumption is still tracked.
We can see the future by looking at other grids that are farther ahead in the transition.
Even if nuclear power were free, it takes 7 cents per kwh just for the poles and wires, the transmission costs. Solar is already 2 cents or less in some places.
"Farmers are getting renewable Standalone Power Systems as Western Australia's regional power grid is dismantled"
"We're looking at installing standalone micro-grids in regional towns," Mr Bristow said.
"Electricity poles are being cut down and carted away. Thousands of kilometres of overhead wiring are being rolled up.
I'm not seeing the 7 per kwh just for lines and poles in that article... but the SPS they're rolling out include a 20kw solar array, a battery (unknown size but I'm guessing it's sizable) plus a diesel back up generator. I'd guess that's roughly 100,000 USD all told. Maybe in rural Australia one of the sunniest and most fire prone places on earth this makes sense, but I really don't think this kind of overbuilt system is going to be typical or even desirable.
2
u/leapinleopard Dec 03 '23
3 x nothing is still nothing...
Nuclear builds are marginal now, and Solar just gets cheaper with scale.
Nuclear will never compete again against solar, wind, storage, water, hydro, demand response, etc...
Tripling nuclear power capacity by 2050 might increase its share in growing global electricity demand from 10% now to ~12% by 2050.
The target is very optimistic, though: capacity growth for the coming decade is already fixed, and it would take years to ramp up the supply chain.
They are pledging to "work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050".
But there is no specific commitment for signatories to increase their own use of nuclear power. [https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key\](https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key)
By the end of 2027, not only will we have nearly 3.5 TW of installed solar capacity globally, China will have more than 1 TW.
➡️ 10 GW was passed in 2008
➡️ 100 GW was passed in 2012
➡️ 1 TW was passed in 2022.
➡️ 2 TW will be passed in 2025
➡️ 3 TW will be passed in 2027
Solar will be too cheap to meter. Who is going risk capital on nuclear when it takes 50 years to get a ROI, even longer in this high-interest rate environment?