Offshore windfarm Vineyard Wind 1 is nearing completion. It consists of 806 MW of installed capacity, that’s 13 MW for each of the 62 turbines. The cost is about $4 billion. $900 million of which consists of connecting each turbine to a substation.

This doesn’t include the infrastructure from the shore to the substation. Given that the Dutch TenneT recently awarded €23 billion in contracts for a 22 GW connection, it might be safe to assume another $800 million for Vineyard Wind 1.

Another aspect is that offshore wind allows for a capacity factor of around 45%, meaning that over a year you can expect the installed capacity to reach 45% of its capability. The rest of the year it’s too windy or not windy at all. This means that 806 MW of installed capacity that you’re getting about 360 MW of current on average.

‘On average’ implies another thing, and that’s that we, as a society, need electricity 24/7. So to ensure that, we’ll need 806 MWe of backup. Most likely (although I haven’t looked it up in this case), this is natural gas. This is why wind (and solar) can better be described as ‘fuel saving’, rather than truly clean energy sources. The cost of this backup is also excluded.

Then we get to the life expectancy. Given that this is out at sea, I think we’re safe to assume a life expectancy of 20 years, at most.

Now, calculating the LCOE, including the $800 million cable from the shore to the park, we get to:

Cost = sum of costs over lifetime / sum of electricity over lifetime.

$4.8 billion / (8760 hours per years * 20 years * 0.45 * 360 MW) = $169 / MWh

After 20 years, assuming we don’t need to replace the infrstructure, it drops to $141 / MWh.

Comparing this to Vogtle 3 and 4, one of the most expensive nuclear builds ever at $35 billion for 2200 MW. The capacity level is a lot higher, at around 90%. The lifespan is also a lot longer, at 80 years.

Using the same formula, we get to - hold for it: $25 per MWh.

Note 1: I’m just counting capital costs here, not operational costs. However, even if we double the final amount for nuclear (almost $450 million a year in OPEX!), it would still mean nuclear to be extremely cheap.

Note 2: I’m also not counting financial costs as this is too big of a wild card to consider here. Suffice to say that a high interest is bad, a low interest is good. We want to build nuclear power plants and wind parks with low interest loans.

Note 3: The costs for the next AP1000’s (the units at Vogtle) are likely to drop, given that we now have a load of experience with the design, the design is finalised, is fully approved by the NRC and there are existing supply chains. Projections aim at $2900 / kW, or about $3.2 billion per reactor. Even if it is double that, that’s still half the current cost of Vogtle. I deliberately took this ‘worst case scenario’.

Now, the point I’m trying to make here is twofold:

1. Nuclear isn’t expensive. Seriously. Don’t be blinded by the upfront capital costs. Likewise, wind (and solar) isn’t cheap. If anything, nuclear is an expensive way to make cheap energy, and wind and solar are cheap ways to make expensive energy.
2. Can we please stop framing the energy transition as “everything will be so cheap”? It’s going to be more expensive than it was with fossils. The fundamental economic problem with fossils is that they’re so god damn cheap compared to the low carbon competition. We need to be honest about that.