5 ms·

Coal is abundant and cheap and well suited to day and night base load power. The emissions are awful but there is no suitable replacement right now which fits t

Coal is abundant and cheap and well suited to day and night base load power. The emissions are awful but there is no suitable replacement right now which fits those criteria (nuclear falls down on the cheap point). Sure, we can keep burning natural gas like it's going out of style but at some point demand is going to push up supply again. Until grid level storage is well proven (and not geographically constrained like pumped hydro) that is the reality.

AQuantized 7y ago
From what I've read, even considering the setup and decommissioning costs of nuclear power, it's still cheaper long term than coal power. Is this incorrect?
- beat 7y ago
  Yes, it's incorrect. The long-term cost of nuclear is about the same as coal. That's why we're seeing nuclear plants closing years ahead of schedule, just like coal. Gas, onshore wind, and the latest solar all cost about half as much. This comment will undoubtedly trigger rebuttals about fusion, thorium, and other technologies that do not actually exist at production scale and will not exist for at least another decade. Solar and wind (and for better or worse, fracked gas) are here NOW.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    This is not true at all. Plants are closing because of onerous NIMBY regulation. They can be made cheap if they are built at scale, see South Korea for an example of cheap plant production. Indeed, SK produces nuclear so cheap that they are exporting plants to other countries.
    - beat 7y ago
      Do you have any evidence for this? Can you point to any nuclear plant in the US (or anywhere else) that closed prematurely due to new regulations? I bet you can't. As for South Korea... I'll just quote Wikipedia here. "In 2012 South Korea had plans for significant expansion of its nuclear power industry, and to increase nuclear's share of generation to 60% by 2035.[2] Eleven more reactors were scheduled to come online in the period 2012 to 2021, adding 13.8 GWe in total.[3] However, in 2013 the government submitted a reduced draft plan to parliament for nuclear output of up to 29% of generation capacity by 2035, following several scandals related to falsification of safety documentation.[1] This new plan still involved increasing 2035 nuclear capacity by 7 GWe, to 43 GWe.[4] Responding to widespread public concerns after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, the high earthquake risk in South Korea, and the nuclear scandals, the new government of President Moon Jae-in elected in 2017 decided to gradually phase out nuclear power. The three reactors currently under construction will be completed, but the government has decided these will be the last built, and as the existing plants close at a 40 years end-of-life they will be replaced with other modes of generation."
peeters 7y ago
That's why you put a price on carbon emissions. The free market isn't going to solve it. There's an abundance of clean energy out there (e.g. Ontario sells the U.S. massive amounts of electricity at a loss), the problem is that coal's price doesn't reflect the damage it does to the planet.
- IanCal 7y ago
  Not having a price on the emissions amounts to an enormous subsidy paid by everyone, though not equally.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Mostly by those in the future.
    - IanCal 7y ago
      Very true, I was thinking of geographical and income differences but now Vs the future is a very good point. I've recently had a kid and there's a decent chance they could live to see 2100 which puts predictions for the century in a whe new context for me. It's simple maths so it shouldn't have taken having a child for that to feel so real but still.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  Yes, room temperature superconductivity would also be a good solution to the problem. If we have the ability to transmit power around the world without huge losses from where it is being produced to where it can be consumed then a lot of the problems go away.
  - peeters 7y ago
    I don't think transmission is a huge issue; plenty of opportunity to generate in situ. e.g. going back to Ontario exporting low-carbon energy, of its sustained generation ~60% is nuclear, 15% wind (largely on-land). There's no reason you couldn't generate both of those in the midwest where coal usage is highest. All that is needed is for coal to cost what it should actually cost.
the8472 7y ago
> Sure, we can keep burning natural gas like it's going out of style Yes, that's pretty much the plan. Like superman it is a transitional power source.
ivl 7y ago
It's artificially cheap because the consequences of air pollution isn't priced into coal. It really, really ought to be. [1] 1. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/air-pollution-linked-with-new-causes-of-hospital-admissions/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/air-polluti...
eloff 7y ago
Actually, that was once true, but coal is no longer economical. Renewables are approaching the marginal operating cost for coal plants. It's already silly to build a new coal plant, because it costs more than other options. But once costs of renewables drop below the operating cost of coal, then you can save money by replacing existing plants. This is already true for less efficient coal plants and in the most sunny or windy places. Which is why you see coal plants being shut down. The situation is complicated by lack of practical grid storage, but using gas plants that can spin up and down quickly plus renewables is currently more economical than new coal. Partly because fracked gas is cheap.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  > Partly because fracked gas is cheap. Indeed. It's easy to look at a 2% drop and pat everyone on the back for buying a shiny new Tesla and installing solar panels on their roof but the fact is the drop is just because per unit mass Gas has a higher concentration of Hydrogen and less Carbon. I mentioned above, the current situation with Gas prices being driven down won't last forever. Not to mention that there is plenty of controversy around fracking to start off with.
- beat 7y ago
  Renewables are already far cheaper than coal. That's what's driving their growth. The biggest limit on renewable growth right now is available capital.
  - eloff 7y ago
    They are cheaper than new coal. They are not quite cheaper than the operating cost of existing, large coal plants, with a few exceptions, last I checked. But that may be only a couple years away now.
ossworkerrights 7y ago
One needs to factor in all costs associated with a source of energy, including environmental impact and health costs, which make coal more expensive than other sources. If population lives in a highly polluted area or country that means more health issues and less productivity, more costs for health care and less money to spend on goods and services.
jes5199 7y ago
currently natural gas is mostly a byproduct of oil extraction - as long as we're burning a lot of oil in our motor vehicles, the cost of natural gas will be very low. When we start decarbonizing transportation, natural gas supply might decrease enough that "supply and demand" will start to make sense

AQuantized 7y ago

From what I've read, even considering the setup and decommissioning costs of nuclear power, it's still cheaper long term than coal power. Is this incorrect?

beat 7y ago
Yes, it's incorrect. The long-term cost of nuclear is about the same as coal. That's why we're seeing nuclear plants closing years ahead of schedule, just like coal. Gas, onshore wind, and the latest solar all cost about half as much. This comment will undoubtedly trigger rebuttals about fusion, thorium, and other technologies that do not actually exist at production scale and will not exist for at least another decade. Solar and wind (and for better or worse, fracked gas) are here NOW.
- MiroF 7y ago
  This is not true at all. Plants are closing because of onerous NIMBY regulation. They can be made cheap if they are built at scale, see South Korea for an example of cheap plant production. Indeed, SK produces nuclear so cheap that they are exporting plants to other countries.
  - beat 7y ago
    Do you have any evidence for this? Can you point to any nuclear plant in the US (or anywhere else) that closed prematurely due to new regulations? I bet you can't. As for South Korea... I'll just quote Wikipedia here. "In 2012 South Korea had plans for significant expansion of its nuclear power industry, and to increase nuclear's share of generation to 60% by 2035.[2] Eleven more reactors were scheduled to come online in the period 2012 to 2021, adding 13.8 GWe in total.[3] However, in 2013 the government submitted a reduced draft plan to parliament for nuclear output of up to 29% of generation capacity by 2035, following several scandals related to falsification of safety documentation.[1] This new plan still involved increasing 2035 nuclear capacity by 7 GWe, to 43 GWe.[4] Responding to widespread public concerns after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, the high earthquake risk in South Korea, and the nuclear scandals, the new government of President Moon Jae-in elected in 2017 decided to gradually phase out nuclear power. The three reactors currently under construction will be completed, but the government has decided these will be the last built, and as the existing plants close at a 40 years end-of-life they will be replaced with other modes of generation."

peeters 7y ago

That's why you put a price on carbon emissions. The free market isn't going to solve it. There's an abundance of clean energy out there (e.g. Ontario sells the U.S. massive amounts of electricity at a loss), the problem is that coal's price doesn't reflect the damage it does to the planet.

IanCal 7y ago
Not having a price on the emissions amounts to an enormous subsidy paid by everyone, though not equally.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Mostly by those in the future.
  - IanCal 7y ago
    Very true, I was thinking of geographical and income differences but now Vs the future is a very good point. I've recently had a kid and there's a decent chance they could live to see 2100 which puts predictions for the century in a whe new context for me. It's simple maths so it shouldn't have taken having a child for that to feel so real but still.
VBprogrammer 7y ago
Yes, room temperature superconductivity would also be a good solution to the problem. If we have the ability to transmit power around the world without huge losses from where it is being produced to where it can be consumed then a lot of the problems go away.
- peeters 7y ago
  I don't think transmission is a huge issue; plenty of opportunity to generate in situ. e.g. going back to Ontario exporting low-carbon energy, of its sustained generation ~60% is nuclear, 15% wind (largely on-land). There's no reason you couldn't generate both of those in the midwest where coal usage is highest. All that is needed is for coal to cost what it should actually cost.

the8472 7y ago

> Sure, we can keep burning natural gas like it's going out of style Yes, that's pretty much the plan. Like superman it is a transitional power source.

ivl 7y ago

It's artificially cheap because the consequences of air pollution isn't priced into coal. It really, really ought to be. [1] 1. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/air-pollution-linked-with-new-causes-of-hospital-admissions/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/air-polluti...

eloff 7y ago

Actually, that was once true, but coal is no longer economical. Renewables are approaching the marginal operating cost for coal plants. It's already silly to build a new coal plant, because it costs more than other options. But once costs of renewables drop below the operating cost of coal, then you can save money by replacing existing plants. This is already true for less efficient coal plants and in the most sunny or windy places. Which is why you see coal plants being shut down. The situation is complicated by lack of practical grid storage, but using gas plants that can spin up and down quickly plus renewables is currently more economical than new coal. Partly because fracked gas is cheap.

VBprogrammer 7y ago
> Partly because fracked gas is cheap. Indeed. It's easy to look at a 2% drop and pat everyone on the back for buying a shiny new Tesla and installing solar panels on their roof but the fact is the drop is just because per unit mass Gas has a higher concentration of Hydrogen and less Carbon. I mentioned above, the current situation with Gas prices being driven down won't last forever. Not to mention that there is plenty of controversy around fracking to start off with.
beat 7y ago
Renewables are already far cheaper than coal. That's what's driving their growth. The biggest limit on renewable growth right now is available capital.
- eloff 7y ago
  They are cheaper than new coal. They are not quite cheaper than the operating cost of existing, large coal plants, with a few exceptions, last I checked. But that may be only a couple years away now.

ossworkerrights 7y ago

One needs to factor in all costs associated with a source of energy, including environmental impact and health costs, which make coal more expensive than other sources. If population lives in a highly polluted area or country that means more health issues and less productivity, more costs for health care and less money to spend on goods and services.

jes5199 7y ago

currently natural gas is mostly a byproduct of oil extraction - as long as we're burning a lot of oil in our motor vehicles, the cost of natural gas will be very low. When we start decarbonizing transportation, natural gas supply might decrease enough that "supply and demand" will start to make sense