3 ms·

Nuclear energy has a small carbon footprint when compared to fracked natural gas. It is insane to cancel and abandon two reactors because natural gas prices are

Nuclear energy has a small carbon footprint when compared to fracked natural gas. It is insane to cancel and abandon two reactors because natural gas prices are low. Doesn't anyone think long term anymore? How much CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere due to this cancellation? What will be the collateral damage due to the inadvertent release of methane in fracking. Nuclear power is clean and safe relative to fossil fuel power generation.

Zigurd 9y ago
"It is insane to cancel and abandon two reactors because natural gas prices are low." Not if, for whatever reasons, it's impossible to build them on time and within budget. It's regrettable for a whole range of reasons, not least that it keeps older, less-safe nukes running when maybe they shouldn't. Maybe recovering the cost of carbon fuel externalities would change the relative profitability of nuclear. But maybe the way we use nuclear power - the fuel, the safety issues, etc. - is wrong enough that it can't be fixed without a fundamental re-think.
skybrian 9y ago
If you're looking decades out, you need to think about all the potential competitors in the energy market. I'm not sure the case building these plants gets any better. Costs for solar, wind, and energy storage are coming down rapidly, and they can be built relatively quickly.
sehugg 9y ago
Our long-term thinking is somewhat affected by politics. From the article: President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, finalized in 2015, would have given South Carolina and Georgia credit against their state climate goals for finishing the new reactors, which may have persuaded local regulators to stick with the project. But the Trump administration is dismantling that plan. The pro-fossil fuel take: http://www.heritage.org/coal-oil-natural-gas/commentary/trumps-sweeping-executive-order-climate-policy-has-been-sorely http://www.heritage.org/coal-oil-natural-gas/commentary/trum... And the pro-environment take: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/04/19/430591/hidden-costs-president-trumps-campaign-erase-social-cost-carbon/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/0...
marze 9y ago
But why not compare to other carbon free options? A $18B budget buys a lot of solar panels. At the current price of $0.50 per W, you get 36GW. A 1GW reactor has a 80% capacity factor, solar more like 20%, so it is 7.2GW average vs 0.8 GW average for nuclear. Of course, you need to install those panels, so you might end up with 2GW average output. And no fuel cost and minimal operation cost. There is a reason solar installations are growing at 100% per year and existing nuclear plants are shutting down. It is economics.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  (And maybe the Federal tax credit)
  - cma 9y ago
    Nuclear plants get something similar. Their liability is capped at $12.6 billion. A meltdown near a major population center would cost a lot more, but they don't have to insure against much of because of that cap.
beat 9y ago
We have a government where the Department of Energy is run by a climate change denier. So, um.

Zigurd 9y ago

"It is insane to cancel and abandon two reactors because natural gas prices are low." Not if, for whatever reasons, it's impossible to build them on time and within budget. It's regrettable for a whole range of reasons, not least that it keeps older, less-safe nukes running when maybe they shouldn't. Maybe recovering the cost of carbon fuel externalities would change the relative profitability of nuclear. But maybe the way we use nuclear power - the fuel, the safety issues, etc. - is wrong enough that it can't be fixed without a fundamental re-think.

skybrian 9y ago

If you're looking decades out, you need to think about all the potential competitors in the energy market. I'm not sure the case building these plants gets any better. Costs for solar, wind, and energy storage are coming down rapidly, and they can be built relatively quickly.

sehugg 9y ago

Our long-term thinking is somewhat affected by politics. From the article: President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, finalized in 2015, would have given South Carolina and Georgia credit against their state climate goals for finishing the new reactors, which may have persuaded local regulators to stick with the project. But the Trump administration is dismantling that plan. The pro-fossil fuel take: http://www.heritage.org/coal-oil-natural-gas/commentary/trumps-sweeping-executive-order-climate-policy-has-been-sorely http://www.heritage.org/coal-oil-natural-gas/commentary/trum... And the pro-environment take: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/04/19/430591/hidden-costs-president-trumps-campaign-erase-social-cost-carbon/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/0...

marze 9y ago

But why not compare to other carbon free options? A $18B budget buys a lot of solar panels. At the current price of $0.50 per W, you get 36GW. A 1GW reactor has a 80% capacity factor, solar more like 20%, so it is 7.2GW average vs 0.8 GW average for nuclear. Of course, you need to install those panels, so you might end up with 2GW average output. And no fuel cost and minimal operation cost. There is a reason solar installations are growing at 100% per year and existing nuclear plants are shutting down. It is economics.

sliverstorm 9y ago
(And maybe the Federal tax credit)
- cma 9y ago
  Nuclear plants get something similar. Their liability is capped at $12.6 billion. A meltdown near a major population center would cost a lot more, but they don't have to insure against much of because of that cap.

beat 9y ago

We have a government where the Department of Energy is run by a climate change denier. So, um.