In the US, the equivalent to 1GW nuclear would be something like 4GW solar + 18GWh storage. Though it's not fully equivalent because solar + storage is far more flexible and would make a lot more money on the grid, since it can shift power to when it's needed rather than being a constant base of power.
At old NREL prices that would be $4.3B for the solar, and $7.4B for the storage, but the lifetimes don't match up with nuclear either. You'd need to replace the storage after 15-20 years, and the solar after 30 years, if the nuclear plant is going to get a lifetime extension to 50 or 60 years. But 15 years from now, prices for batteries and solar will be far far far lower, we just have no clue how much.
> In the US, the equivalent to 1GW nuclear would be something like 4GW solar + 18GWh storage.
Are you speaking about the precision location of this planned project, or generally about the United States? Really, the US is way too big to generalise about solar efficiency. Compare New England to Southwest US will have massively different solar coefficients. The same is true in Europe: Compare Scotland to Central Spain. Wildly different solar coefficients.
In addition to this, the nuclear plant also needs both major component replacements and refurbishments over it's life, and then decommissioning at end of life, neither of which are cheap or accounted for in the sticker price.
Do you know if there's enough of a market yet for battery recycling at utility scale, and if they pay you to get the old battery?
I know that there are several battery recycling startups, and their biggest hurdle is lack of batteries to recycle. Also that the amount recovered is high enough, and manufacturing progress a fast enough, that a recycled battery will have greater capacity than the original battery.
