Quote:


OK, I can see you do not know how to use google, so I will dumb it down for you. Google this: "Are renewables still cheaper than nuclear when you take the cost of grid storage into account".

No need to take my word for it or pretend the numbers belong to me.

Do you actually disagree with any of this, or do you just want other people to show you how to use the internet? I am pretty sure I have walked you through this at least a dozen times in separate threads already, but you always ask the same questions again. Like a broken record.

Quote:


You are, as ever, confused Lee.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:32pm:



No petal. I deliberately used the full term of Levelised Full Cost Of Electricity.

I can't help it if you don't see the difference.

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:41pm:


This is what I get when I google "Levelised Full Cost Of Electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear":

Yes, firmed renewables (wind and solar combined with storage and transmission) are significantly cheaper than nuclear power according to major economic and engineering studies.

Again, google it yourself if you want the numbers.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:54pm:



And when I do Google AI, it says -

"levelised full cost of electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear"

"Yes, firmed renewable energy (such as solar and wind paired with storage and transmission) is significantly cheaper than nuclear power on a levelised full cost of electricity (LCOE) basis" I quried why Google said LCOE, and they admitted their error.

Me: "Your anser sasys levelised foull cost of electricity and then says in brackets LCOE which is not full cost"

Google: "You are entirely correct, and I apologize for that conflation. LCOE (Levelised Cost of Energy) is not the full system cost; it only measures the "at the generator fence" cost of producing a single megawatt-hour of electricity."

G: "To account for the full costs of integrating weather-dependent renewables into the grid, economists and institutions use a different metric: LCOCE (Levelised Full Cost of Electricity) or System LCOE.

"When expert reports like Australia's CSIRO GenCost model the Levelised Full Cost (incorporating storage and transmission integration), they use a framework called "Firmed LCOE.""

I then responded ""Firmed LCOE" is also not  the the full cost"

G:  "You are completely correct, and I appreciate you pushing back on this. "Firmed LCOE" is still an incomplete metric and does not represent the true full system cost of a real-world electricity grid.
While firmed LCOE attempts to patch the flaws of standard LCOE by bundling a standardized amount of storage (like a 4-hour battery) and a fixed share of transmission, it is still a project-level calculation. It fails to capture the complex, compounding costs that occur when you try to run an entire society on a given energy "

Energy economists point out that firmed LCOE routinely leaves out four massive system-wide expenses:

1. The "Dunkelflaute" and Exponential Overbuilding

Firmed LCOE models usually assume a routine, daily cycle of storage (charging by day, discharging at night). They do not account for a Dunkelflaute—extended periods of consecutive days or weeks with near-zero wind and solar output.
To guarantee reliability through these weather events without fossil-fuel backup, a renewable grid requires either massive multi-day seasonal storage or extreme overbuilding of wind and solar capacity. This extra capacity sits idle and wasted (curtailed) most of the year, which dramatically spikes the real cost per megawatt-hour delivered.

2. Inertia and Ancillary Services (Grid Stability)

Large spinning turbines in nuclear, coal, and hydro plants inherently provide synchronous inertia, which keeps the grid’s frequency stable at 50Hz or 60Hz. Wind and solar do not provide this naturally. Replacing mechanical inertia requires complex systems like synchronous condensers or specialized fast-frequency battery software, costs that are heavily externalized and omitted from firmed LCOE.

3. Local Distribution Grid Upgrades

Firmed LCOE accounts for transmission lines (the big towers moving power across regions) but largely ignores distribution networks (the power lines on your street). Managing two-way power flows from rooftop solar, local batteries, and electric vehicle charging requires multi-billion-dollar upgrades to local substations and street-level infrastructure.

4. True System Metrics: LFSCOE and SLOE

To capture the actual macroeconomic reality, researchers use macro-system models like System Levelised Cost of Electricity (SLOE) or Levelised Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE).
• These model an entire region's grid hour-by-hour over decades.
• Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective, pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially.
• This is where dispatchable, high-capacity factors like nuclear look more competitive on a true full-system basis, because they eliminate the exponential curve of backup infrastructure.
Thank you for clarifying this—using "full cost" to describe firmed LCOE was technically inaccurate."

Source :Google AI

You're welcome.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:28pm:


Why didn't you complete what it said?lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:16pm:


Or do you only want four hours of battery?freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:28pm:


The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average. AT ALL.


Just go nuclear. No need for intermittent, weather dependant power at all.

What happens under a Dunkelflaute? Freeze in the dark?

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:16pm:


You do know that The USA and many other countries do not re process? The MOX fuel produced in re processing can only be used in some reactors and is more expensive.

Also for a material that will be around for a few hundred thousand years how big an impact would be re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit. That is re processing may get you an extre ten years? This doesnt really solve the problem and it is also not costed in the plans.

With nuclear if the full cost of managing the waste for a hundred thousand years were to be included would the cost work out to be something like ten billion dollars a megawatt ?

BTW - I just installed Claude, just for you.


Me: levelised Full Cost Of Electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear

Claude: On plain LCOE, yes: new wind and solar come out far cheaper than new nuclear. Once you add the cost of making the grid reliable, the gap narrows, and it depends on the assumptions.

Headline numbers (Lazard’s 2026 report, US, unsubsidised)

Utility-scale solar is roughly $40-98/MWh, and onshore wind is roughly $37-99/MWh.
pv-magazine-usa
New nuclear is roughly $175-255/MWh, mainly because of high capital requirements and long development timelines.
pv-magazine-usa
Lazard’s nuclear figure is based on public cost estimates for Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which were notoriously over budget. A smoother build programme would likely come in lower, and Lazard’s own commentary suggests costs would fall as more plants are built.

There is that pesky Subsidy again.

Me: LCOE is not the levelised full cost of electricity

C: You’re right. I treated your question as plain LCOE, and the figures I gave were only generation costs. Levelised full cost of electricity (LFCOE, also called levelised full system cost) adds the system-level costs LCOE leaves out. Let me check the current evidence on that.

Once you count full system costs, firmed renewables still come out cheaper than new nuclear in most of the studies I found. The gap is smaller than the plain LCOE figures suggest, and the studies disagree about method.

Now the CSIRO next Gen report 25-26, says by 2030 we need 33GWh of battery storage. The east coast of Australia uses about 655GWh per day. That's about 3 minutes.

It then says we need 12GWh of hydro, 7 already existing and hoping Snowy2 finishes in time. Add that to the batteries and we get to 4 minutes.