4 ms·
This is only because for some reason when we talk about wind and solar we don't factor in the cost of coal, nuclear, gas and oil which are being used as backup.
by ThomPete 7y ago
This is only because for some reason when we talk about wind and solar we don't factor in the cost of coal, nuclear, gas and oil which are being used as backup.
Furthermore, with wind and solar, we don't factor in things like decommission like you would on nuclear.
- pjc50 7y agoNuclear decomissioning is the only one that's especially expensive; I suspect if you look at most of the actual wind farm contracts you'll see a decomissioning cost in there somewhere. Factoring in the "backup" generators makes no sense in a free market electricity economy. That's like saying you need to factor in the cost of a taxi to train tickets, in case the train is broken down.
- ThomPete 7y agoYou don't see that in there, unfortunately. And of course, it makes sense to factor in backup energy as you can't actually deliver consistent energy with wind and solar alone. So the true cost of wind and solar should obviously include the cost of running these backups AND it would then of course also mean some of those externalities. Anything else is dishonest comparison IMO which the above article is guilty of.
- pjc50 7y agoBut that's not how an electricity spot market works. The market price is instantaneous as the energy is delivered.
- ThomPete 7y agoThat's how you need to discuss this in order to get to the true cost otherwise you are making decisions based on incorrect data. Wind can't deliver enough energy it's relying on other types. So any discussion that includes wind or solar as a solution needs to include what backup are needed and what that cost. The reverse mind you is not true.
- smush 7y agoIsn't there some newish varieties of nuclear plant designs that consume nuclear waste from other older designs? I heard about it on the radio, so I may be remembering it wrong, but it was something to the effect of the new nuclear plants using 'nuclear waste' from old plants currently sitting in caskets since we don't know what to do with them and gleaning more energy out of them for XYZ thousand years in ideal conditions.
- pfdietz 7y agoNuclear waste isn't what's killing nuclear power; cost is (and the cost is not caused by the existence of nuclear waste.)
- ThomPete 7y agoBureaucrazy is though.
- pfdietz 7y agoWell, what's the alternative? Things like wind and solar advance quickly not because there's a bit less regulation, but because there's massively less. Turbine and module designs don't have to be approved by a controlling bureaucracy. And they can get away with empirical, field-testing-based improvement because the consequences of field failures are manageable. Nuclear is not like that. Learning-by-meltdown would be completely unacceptable. It's not even acceptable in non-democracies. And even aside from that, proliferation concerns would guarantee a controlling bureaucracy exists.
- ThomPete 7y agoThey don't advance quickly. They are less then 1% of the worlds energy usage and are only projected to be around 3-4% in 2040. They advance because of the political tailwind they have not because they are actual solutions. Again you can't have energy based on solar and wind alone. You need backup energy. That means oil, gas, coal and nuclear. Nuclear powerplants don't meltdown today and fewer people died from nuclear in all its time than from what nature alone kills in a year by a factor.