Ouarzazate

I believe that solar panels these days have a lifespan that is rather hard to define. They lose output capacity as the years roll by. I seem to remember 80% capacity at around the 20 year mark. I doubt that one would want to keep them much beyond 25 years because of loss of capacity. Maximum stated output capacity (nameplate) (at high noon, no clouds or smog, not hot temps on panels) is never equal to actual capacity, due to a variety of reasons. As I recall, a 6KW solar roof never outputs more than 5KW, often around 4.5 KW at its maximum (high noon). A molten salt nuclear reactor can easily produce power at less than 3 cents per kWhr (no fuel costs, few workers required, no pressures in the reactor much above atmospheric pressure, no need to shutdown for refueling, giving it a capacity 100% of its nameplate capacity [ verses around 20% of nameplate capacity for a solar panel] can be located in cities, very close to ultimate users as small or large modular reactors). Lifespan of the molten salt reactor depends upon the design, some probably in excess of 80 years, others about the same as curtrent light water conventional nuclear reactors – about 60+ years. Cost of construction of a molten salt reactors varies with design – most expensive design will cost about two thirds the cost of a conventional nuclear reactor or about $3 billion per GW [1000MW], cheaper Moltex design probably less than half(around $2 billion) but with somewhat higher maintenance costs because the design requires sacrificial reactor walls that needs replacement about every 6 years.
I’m uncertain how many times the solar panels will need replacement (often due to loss of capacity) during the lifespan of either type of molten salt reactor, but it will be “more than several” I believe.
But comparing the cost of solar panels to 24/7 power production technologies is absurd – they are in no way comparable. Unreliable power (from wind/solar) is ALWAYS much less valuable because of its very nature, which requires duplicative power capacity on the grid, up and running and ready to go when the unreliable capacity is reduced (winds dies down, or gets too strong for the turbine to handle, or clouds roll over solar panels, or the sun goes down or loses its irradiance due to time of day, etc) . This is happening right now in the midwest, where utilities are buying significant amounts of wind power and buying much less from nuclear plants Conventional nuclear plants are designed as baseload plants, running 24/7 at virtually 100% capacity. They cannot ramp up and down quickly
and when all of their power is not bought by the utility, their cost per kWhr produced is increased almost directly proportional to the loss of sales – i.e. a 50% reduction in sales leads to twice the production costs of a kWhr. They cannot reduce fuel costs to any extent becasue 1) fuel for a reactor is cheap – 3/4th of a cent per kWhr 2) they cannot ramp up and down to enjoy an fuel reductions. Nuclear operators have threatened to shut down some of their under-used reactors because of the losses they have sustained for the past several years due to lost sales – this threat has teeth, because that would leave the midwestern utilities with insufficient 24/7 capacity and lead to power blackouts. So the midwestern utilities now wlil have to pay the nuclear operators much higher prices for their reduced output in order that the nuclear plants can stop their losses and keep operating. That means higher utility bills for the consumer. The cost of unreliable power can only be calculated by taking account of all of the costs that using such power entail for a grid that requires 24/7 power availability.
That AWAYS means duplicative capacity and that would be true even if every renewable provider had significant storage capacity (which would increase their costs signficantly) – storage capacity merely stores power – it cannot produce power and loss of wind or sun irradiance is not limited to 24 or 48 hours, or whatever length of time can be supplied by stored energy. And after that loss of stored energy, the renewable capacity is reduced during the period that exhausted or drained storage capacity needs to be restored.
The whole problem here is that the sun only shines part of the day, and varies enormously in its enegy depending upon the time of day and atmospheric conditions. So solar power is not reliaible and even has an actual output capacity that varies when the sun is shining. Worst of all possible energy worlds, one might say.
Solar and wind will never be competitive with the new nuclear technology of molten salt reactors.
No matter how one views the issue – cost, carbon reduction, safety , side benefits (land use, reduction of nuclear wastes to a “No concern” state) and side penalties (bird/bat killings) molten salt reactors are far and away superior to renewable power providers, regardless of what those renewable providers might do in the way of energy storage, increases in solar panel efficiencies, etc. Renewables are inextricably tied to energy sources which are incapable of meeting the needs of an electric grid.