6 ms·

Low/negative prices (caused largely by various regulation/policies) have been putting a lot of economic pressure on existing nuclear power generation - sometime

Low/negative prices (caused largely by various regulation/policies) have been putting a lot of economic pressure on existing nuclear power generation - sometimes causing it to close [1]. Generation that is largely replaced by natural gas plants. So maybe this very non-free-market state is actually not helping make forward progress on what many would consider to be one of the most important issues relating to energy - climate change. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/05/16/natural-gas-is-replacing-nuclear-power-not-renewables/#4215755ccdb6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/05/16/natural-g...

nostrademons 8y ago
An energy industry where the bulk of energy production is wind & solar with natural gas plants to handle peak demand spikes is significantly more environmentally friendly than an industry where the bulk of production is oil & coal with a few nuclear plants thrown in.
- darawk 8y ago
  Yes, but we want the coal to be displaced. Not the nuclear.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Coal already has been displaced. The reason there's less of a downturn is because there's a lot less of it to begin with: https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/ https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/ There's 20x more nuclear than coal energy in New England. Proportionally, the drop in coal energy (~50%) was a lot more than the drop in nuclear energy (~15%).
- rwcarlsen 8y ago
  Neither of the alternatives you propose are what we currently have or are where we are currently heading (IMO). As long as we are speculating - I think a future with good storage tech and 100% solar+wind would be better than one with gas plants thrown in the mix. If climate change is as big a deal as people claim, than why would we sacrifice existing non-carbon-emitting capacity for natural gas? We don't currently have anything remotely resembling a largely renewable grid nor the technology to even accomplish it at scale.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    The article suggests that solar + wind with natgas for peaks is exactly where we're headed. At least in the regions being talked about (mostly Europe + California). The Forbes article you linked is about New England. New England will probably be the last region to get decent renewable adoption. Solar panels don't work as well because they're far north and get a number of cloudy days, the winds are not that strong outside of the Cape Cod and certain parts of the Maine shoreline, and there are few rivers that are suitable for hydro.
    - briffle 8y ago
      Natural Gas "Peaker" plants are VERY expensive to run. (Mainly because of their low utilization compared to high costs). In many cases, battery storage is already cheaper than peaker plants.
    - mpax 8y ago
      Regarding the cloudyness... Has anyone ever tried to levitate photovoltaics into the stratosphere? Blimpy-space-elevator kinda thing? Is such a thing even possible?
      - rileyphone 8y ago
        I feel like it's far easier just to transmit it 1000 miles or so from a sunnier place.
        nine_k 8y ago
        Not necessarily, because 1000 miles of a transmission line is a lot of metal, land, construction, and electricity losses. Unfortunately, a power station at 100-200 miles above Earth, where sunshine is eternal, and which is relatively accessible, will not stay above the same spot, and GEO is way high (22k miles) and thus even more expensive to build at (and already pretty crowded nevertheless).
      - dojomouse 8y ago
- swebs 8y ago
  I'd much rather have solar/wind/nuclear than solar/wind/gas.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    I would too, but that's not a possible combination. The issue is that at any given moment, the amount of electricity produced must equal the amount consumed. Solar and wind have production curves that are defined by the sun and wind, and typically peak early morning (for wind) and mid-day (for solar), which are often not the times of peak demand. So when everyone turns on their lights, TVs, stoves, and laptops in the evenings, there needs to be a quick-responding power plant to meet the excess demand. By far the preferred technology for this is a natural gas turbine, because it's one of the few technologies that can adjust its output within seconds. Nuclear power plants take several hours to days to respond to shifts in demand, because the control rods must be moved, the nuclear chain reaction must speed up, it needs to generate more heat, that heat needs to boil water, and the steam needs to make its way to the turbines. There's more information in the wikipedia pages for "base load", "load following", and "peaking" power plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant Interestingly, solar-thermal is apparently coming online as a potential technology for peaking power plants, which could reduce the need for natural gas.
  - mpax 8y ago
    Afaik the problem is that the currently installed nuclear generators cannot stop their operation in the middle of a fuel cycle.
brandmeyer 8y ago
The green fantasy of renewables + nuclear doesn't work with the current generation of nuclear power plants. US nuclear plants either run at 100% power, or they are shutdown for refueling. That's pretty much the only way they are economical.
matt4077 8y ago
HN seems to have some macho fascination with nuclear power. Or at least that's the only reason I can think of why people would advocate for it, considering nuclear power is simply far too expensive. Yes, maybe the population at large lacks statistical understanding and needlessly fears nuclear power[0]. But it's still too expensive, as demonstrated by the complete lack of new construction. It'd be rather strange for every single energy company and government to succumb to irrationality, simultaneously. Even solar + storage has now crossed nuclear's costs. I [0] And they may just have all read 'Black Swan'
- dalyons 8y ago
  I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, it’s 100% about cost. It’s far too expensive, and the ROI horizons are far too long (multiple decades) Edit: and that’s only if you cut a nice deal where the state picks up the insurance tab, because private insurance markets aren’t going to.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    > I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted Probably the oddly aggressive "macho fascination" bit.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > macho fascination What does this mean?
swalsh 8y ago
If negative externalities such as carbon were properly priced, the dynamics could possibly change (guessing, I'm not quite sure what a fair price on carbon would be, and what the difference in price between nuclear and natural gas is)

nostrademons 8y ago

An energy industry where the bulk of energy production is wind & solar with natural gas plants to handle peak demand spikes is significantly more environmentally friendly than an industry where the bulk of production is oil & coal with a few nuclear plants thrown in.

darawk 8y ago
Yes, but we want the coal to be displaced. Not the nuclear.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Coal already has been displaced. The reason there's less of a downturn is because there's a lot less of it to begin with: https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/ https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/ There's 20x more nuclear than coal energy in New England. Proportionally, the drop in coal energy (~50%) was a lot more than the drop in nuclear energy (~15%).
rwcarlsen 8y ago
Neither of the alternatives you propose are what we currently have or are where we are currently heading (IMO). As long as we are speculating - I think a future with good storage tech and 100% solar+wind would be better than one with gas plants thrown in the mix. If climate change is as big a deal as people claim, than why would we sacrifice existing non-carbon-emitting capacity for natural gas? We don't currently have anything remotely resembling a largely renewable grid nor the technology to even accomplish it at scale.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  The article suggests that solar + wind with natgas for peaks is exactly where we're headed. At least in the regions being talked about (mostly Europe + California). The Forbes article you linked is about New England. New England will probably be the last region to get decent renewable adoption. Solar panels don't work as well because they're far north and get a number of cloudy days, the winds are not that strong outside of the Cape Cod and certain parts of the Maine shoreline, and there are few rivers that are suitable for hydro.
  - briffle 8y ago
    Natural Gas "Peaker" plants are VERY expensive to run. (Mainly because of their low utilization compared to high costs). In many cases, battery storage is already cheaper than peaker plants.
  - mpax 8y ago
    Regarding the cloudyness... Has anyone ever tried to levitate photovoltaics into the stratosphere? Blimpy-space-elevator kinda thing? Is such a thing even possible?
    - rileyphone 8y ago
      I feel like it's far easier just to transmit it 1000 miles or so from a sunnier place.
      - nine_k 8y ago
        Not necessarily, because 1000 miles of a transmission line is a lot of metal, land, construction, and electricity losses. Unfortunately, a power station at 100-200 miles above Earth, where sunshine is eternal, and which is relatively accessible, will not stay above the same spot, and GEO is way high (22k miles) and thus even more expensive to build at (and already pretty crowded nevertheless).
    - dojomouse 8y ago
swebs 8y ago
I'd much rather have solar/wind/nuclear than solar/wind/gas.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  I would too, but that's not a possible combination. The issue is that at any given moment, the amount of electricity produced must equal the amount consumed. Solar and wind have production curves that are defined by the sun and wind, and typically peak early morning (for wind) and mid-day (for solar), which are often not the times of peak demand. So when everyone turns on their lights, TVs, stoves, and laptops in the evenings, there needs to be a quick-responding power plant to meet the excess demand. By far the preferred technology for this is a natural gas turbine, because it's one of the few technologies that can adjust its output within seconds. Nuclear power plants take several hours to days to respond to shifts in demand, because the control rods must be moved, the nuclear chain reaction must speed up, it needs to generate more heat, that heat needs to boil water, and the steam needs to make its way to the turbines. There's more information in the wikipedia pages for "base load", "load following", and "peaking" power plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant Interestingly, solar-thermal is apparently coming online as a potential technology for peaking power plants, which could reduce the need for natural gas.
- mpax 8y ago
  Afaik the problem is that the currently installed nuclear generators cannot stop their operation in the middle of a fuel cycle.

brandmeyer 8y ago

The green fantasy of renewables + nuclear doesn't work with the current generation of nuclear power plants. US nuclear plants either run at 100% power, or they are shutdown for refueling. That's pretty much the only way they are economical.

matt4077 8y ago

HN seems to have some macho fascination with nuclear power. Or at least that's the only reason I can think of why people would advocate for it, considering nuclear power is simply far too expensive. Yes, maybe the population at large lacks statistical understanding and needlessly fears nuclear power[0]. But it's still too expensive, as demonstrated by the complete lack of new construction. It'd be rather strange for every single energy company and government to succumb to irrationality, simultaneously. Even solar + storage has now crossed nuclear's costs. I [0] And they may just have all read 'Black Swan'

dalyons 8y ago
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, it’s 100% about cost. It’s far too expensive, and the ROI horizons are far too long (multiple decades) Edit: and that’s only if you cut a nice deal where the state picks up the insurance tab, because private insurance markets aren’t going to.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  > I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted Probably the oddly aggressive "macho fascination" bit.
antidesitter 8y ago
> macho fascination What does this mean?

swalsh 8y ago

If negative externalities such as carbon were properly priced, the dynamics could possibly change (guessing, I'm not quite sure what a fair price on carbon would be, and what the difference in price between nuclear and natural gas is)