I can't follow your argument. You seem to imply at the same time that my numbers are too small and too high. Which one is it?
In any case, here's a separate reference to corroborate my numbers. It's a study by EIA ( US Energy Information Administration) published in 2020 [1] where they compare the capital costs of different power plants.
One such power plant they consider is a nuclear plant with 2 AP1000 reactors with a total capacity of 2.2 GW. The conventional part of the power plant is listed at $1.4 BN (page 107), which comes at about $640 MM/GW, in line with the estimate from my previous comment. Their overall estimate for such a power plant is about $14 BN, which means the conventional part of the plant is about 10%.
Of course, in the case of Vogtle 3/4 (which uses 2 AP1000 reactors), the overall cost is estimated at about $25 BN, due to various cost overruns.
> I can't follow your argument. You seem to imply at the same time that my numbers are too small and too high. Which one is it?
The devices are too small and the numbers are too high. (These things can be looked up.)
You know, kind of like how if you build a $300k machine out of A100s, and then try to match it with 3090s, you end up spending $800k.
.
> The conventional part of the power plant is listed at $1.4 BN (page 107), which comes at about $640 MM/GW, in line with the estimate from my previous comment.
Sorry, no, your comment was about the turbines, and the document you're linking to is about *the entire plant*.
Please stop trying to google-fight your way through this. You can't learn with your finger in the air.
The issue with turbines is not their capital cost (which is on par with the still falling all-included cost of PV) but rather operating cost. Steam turbines need frequent, expensive overhauls because superheated steam under high pressure is very hard on everything inside.
Renewables suffer no opex of such scale. They age out and need to be replaced, on a time scale of decades, but will be much cheaper to replace, then, than they cost up front. Probably perovskites will be used to replace silicon.
In any case, here's a separate reference to corroborate my numbers. It's a study by EIA ( US Energy Information Administration) published in 2020 [1] where they compare the capital costs of different power plants.
One such power plant they consider is a nuclear plant with 2 AP1000 reactors with a total capacity of 2.2 GW. The conventional part of the power plant is listed at $1.4 BN (page 107), which comes at about $640 MM/GW, in line with the estimate from my previous comment. Their overall estimate for such a power plant is about $14 BN, which means the conventional part of the plant is about 10%.
Of course, in the case of Vogtle 3/4 (which uses 2 AP1000 reactors), the overall cost is estimated at about $25 BN, due to various cost overruns.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost...