Worried about cost over-runs? Build Solar...

What do you mean "Speaks for itself..."?

Over-simplification is what is speaking, here. Since Vogtle is going to produce the same energy as 40,000 acres of solar panels, you just have to point out where they are all going to go?

In the other thread, we broke down how even a 15bb nuke plant ends up producing kilowatt hours for about $.05 each. But it isn't about that to you, is it? We're better off with existing coal, natural gas and as close to the 40,000 acres of panels, that GA and FL can get. If we keep saying this, maybe it will come true.

My key take-away from this article is that system planners should be evaluating technology choices based on realistic installed costs. In my experience, planning is typically done using project costs that have only small contingency funds. If instead they added in realistic expectations for overruns, their choices would be better informed.

It's worth noting that the article had as much praise for wind as it did for solar. It seems that highly modular technologies are the way to go, where almost everything can be manufactured elsewhere and installed in a field. The more 'balance of plant' work that has to be done on-site, the greater the risk and size of overruns.

Cost-over runs aren't relevant. Cost is. Case in point, American Muni Power is refinancing its costs for the wildly jacked up Prairie State pulverized coal plant, this week. Including the mine, S&P is remarking its 1,582MW are up to 5 billion. That's $3.16/watt, before sub-100% capacity factors. It isn't relevant who broke their estimate, or that this plant was supposed to deliver @~$1.50/watt. It's where $$ landed. On that score, Vogtle has already had added costs, and sits currently at about $7 ($7.70 @90%CF). Topaz solar, perhaps the biggest CA commercial PV, is looking at $2bb, for 550MW, but its solar so you have to wash in the much lower capacity factors associated with sun (15%-25%). That takes $3.63/watt up to $14.50 per watt of usable solar capacity. This also carried a price tag for a couple thousand acres of, presumably cheap bright, desert land.

You want to point at cost over runs, but I say look at cost.

Your previous points are well taken, with roof tops and car ports. I met some of Walmart's team, a few days ago. >100MW on their stores, but no plans for car ports because of the price and liability, versus roof mounts and limited ground mounts. Maybe they will get there, but consider just Topaz (try Google image) will require about 8 million panels. This is what raises my blood temps, when other forms of CO2-free energy are targeted as a horse trade. The perspective is impractical.

FYI, Those images of topaz replace a little more than 1/10th the output of the coal plant above (80%CF, on 1,582MW vs. 25%CF on 550MW STC-rated). We can do this math over, and over, again to see the wood solar has to chop, or clarify what we ask of ourselves if we want to go after the fossil elephant.

@3mp_kwh: when comparing power source costs, the calculation needs to look at (a) capital construction costs, (b) maintenance costs, i.e. future capex, (c) operations costs, including fuel and personnel, and (d) decommissioning costs.

Solar and wind are much lower-cost in (c) and (d), and solar is good on (b).