4 ms·
Maintaining existing plants can make a lot of sense in many cases, but the problem with nuclear energy has always been cost. Compared to alternatives, the cost
by bparsons 5y ago
Maintaining existing plants can make a lot of sense in many cases, but the problem with nuclear energy has always been cost.
Compared to alternatives, the cost per kWh is high once you take into account the initial capital investment, operation, retrofits, waste storage and decommissioning costs.
For places like California, wind/solar is not only cheaper, but easier to deal with from a planning and regulatory standpoint. When you have limited time and resources to add more generation capacity, there is usually a better option.
There is always the promise of a new generation of nuclear though. It will most certainly have to get used in places that have no alternatives.
- dylan604 5y agoThe thing I've always liked about nuclear was its reliability of not fluctuating based on the weather outside. Wind/Sun power is fine, but we need storage of that power for use later when wind/sun is not available. I always liked the idea of water resovoir batteries using wind/solar to pump the water so that it could be used for hydro generating. However, California seems to be a bad location for hydro like that as there's no water.
- mcwhy 5y agoThe output of nuclear plants is also affected by the weather, few years ago the Finnish nuclear plants had to reduce output in the summer due to the Baltic Sea warming up too much. Heating it even more from cooling water would damage the ecosystem.
- m463 5y ago> the problem with nuclear energy has always been cost. A lot of people forget this. No matter what philosophical argument you make, economics always rules in the end. Strangely PV is viable in california because of the PG&E regulatory capture setting a high price for electricity. Folks routinely pay .21 to .40c/kwh for electricity in california, so PV economics works.