5 ms·

Nuclear is cheap in Illinois because Exelon, the company that runs the Nuclear plants, bribed the state to give their plants subsidies. https://www.bizjournals.

Nuclear is cheap in Illinois because Exelon, the company that runs the Nuclear plants, bribed the state to give their plants subsidies. https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2020/11/19/ex-comed-ceo-others-charged-by-feds.html https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2020/11/19/ex-comed...

belorn 5y ago
Since there seems to be a lot of interest in Illinois energy subsidies, maybe we could get a tally on how much they spend each year and whom the benefactors are. I got one news article that said they gave nuclear $130 millions each year in 2019, but then other sources say it is a number between $19 and $52 millions. Then in 2021 I find an article that they increased subsidies for renewables by an additional $350 millions per year. In one article that the total subsidies to build new solar and wind has a total of $600 millions per year. An other said that the total of subsidies for renewables are well above $1 billion per year. I couldn't find an article that estimates Illinois fossil fuel subsidies, but one said that the US spend around $20 billions per year. Naturally each article want to either inflate or deflate those numbers to drive a political point, so it would be nice if anyone could bring some authoritative numbers that give the exact number of what Illinois actually spend in terms of energy subsidies.
doikor 5y ago
Nuclear is competing against solar, wind, gas, coal and oil which all get massive subsidies. Why should nuclear be the only one left out that does not?
- deelowe 5y ago
  Clarification, nuclear is used for baseload power generation. It would compete with fossil fuels and hydro. Not solar and in most areas, not wind either. Offshore wind farms may be able to provide baseload power generation, but there are major maintenance issues with them right now.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Wind and solar don't anymore. They are completely self sustaining industries. In New York for example there was a bidding war to get the rights to develop off shore power. > After three days and 64 rounds of bidding, the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) on Friday concluded the nation’s highest-grossing offshore energy lease sale ever, with winning bids from six companies totaling approximately $4.37 billion. > Not only does the amount raised in the New York Bight lease sale far exceed the more than $400 million raised during the previous offshore wind sale in 2018, it even surpasses the highest amount raised during any offshore oil and gas lease sale ever in U.S. history. > The results are a major milestone in the Biden-Harris administration’s goal of reaching 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. https://gcaptain.com/new-york-bight-offshore-wind-lease-auction-blows-away-record-4-billion-winning-bids/ https://gcaptain.com/new-york-bight-offshore-wind-lease-auct...
- VintageCool 5y ago
  Exelon was going to shut down the plants (instead of refueling them) if they didn't get subsidies from Illinois. They got subsidies from Ohio and New Jersey. They didn't get subsidies from Pennsylvania and shut down TMI 1. If existing, fully paid off nuclear power plants are uneconomic to run without subsidies, that really undercuts the narrative the narrative that "construction is expensive and operation is cheap". And given that construction is so expensive, it ruins the economic case for building new nuclear plants (imho).
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    Operation is cheaper, but it is not cheap. The steam based thermodynamic cycle is very expensive compared to CCGT and even worse compared to gearbox into generator for wind power and solid state for solar. In this graph you have the marginal cost of traditional generation compared to total cost of new built renewables. https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png From Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy 2021. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
    - hardolaf 5y ago
      Lazard does not include the cost of storage to provide baseload power from renewables so it's largely a lie.
      - Gwypaas 5y ago
        > While historically large power grids used unvarying power plants to meet the base load, there is no specific technical requirement for this to be so. The base load can equally well be met by the appropriate quantity of intermittent power sources and dispatchable generation.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load#Description It is a straight LCOE shoot out. Storage may help at the limits but is a pure loss from a system perspective.
      - rstuart4133 5y ago
tomp 5y ago
Sounds like a good plan for the rest of the world to adapt, instead of subsidising coal, Saudi Arabia's dictatorship, and Russian tanks.

belorn 5y ago

Since there seems to be a lot of interest in Illinois energy subsidies, maybe we could get a tally on how much they spend each year and whom the benefactors are. I got one news article that said they gave nuclear $130 millions each year in 2019, but then other sources say it is a number between $19 and $52 millions. Then in 2021 I find an article that they increased subsidies for renewables by an additional $350 millions per year. In one article that the total subsidies to build new solar and wind has a total of $600 millions per year. An other said that the total of subsidies for renewables are well above $1 billion per year. I couldn't find an article that estimates Illinois fossil fuel subsidies, but one said that the US spend around $20 billions per year. Naturally each article want to either inflate or deflate those numbers to drive a political point, so it would be nice if anyone could bring some authoritative numbers that give the exact number of what Illinois actually spend in terms of energy subsidies.

doikor 5y ago

Nuclear is competing against solar, wind, gas, coal and oil which all get massive subsidies. Why should nuclear be the only one left out that does not?

deelowe 5y ago
Clarification, nuclear is used for baseload power generation. It would compete with fossil fuels and hydro. Not solar and in most areas, not wind either. Offshore wind farms may be able to provide baseload power generation, but there are major maintenance issues with them right now.
Gwypaas 5y ago
Wind and solar don't anymore. They are completely self sustaining industries. In New York for example there was a bidding war to get the rights to develop off shore power. > After three days and 64 rounds of bidding, the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) on Friday concluded the nation’s highest-grossing offshore energy lease sale ever, with winning bids from six companies totaling approximately $4.37 billion. > Not only does the amount raised in the New York Bight lease sale far exceed the more than $400 million raised during the previous offshore wind sale in 2018, it even surpasses the highest amount raised during any offshore oil and gas lease sale ever in U.S. history. > The results are a major milestone in the Biden-Harris administration’s goal of reaching 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. https://gcaptain.com/new-york-bight-offshore-wind-lease-auction-blows-away-record-4-billion-winning-bids/ https://gcaptain.com/new-york-bight-offshore-wind-lease-auct...
VintageCool 5y ago
Exelon was going to shut down the plants (instead of refueling them) if they didn't get subsidies from Illinois. They got subsidies from Ohio and New Jersey. They didn't get subsidies from Pennsylvania and shut down TMI 1. If existing, fully paid off nuclear power plants are uneconomic to run without subsidies, that really undercuts the narrative the narrative that "construction is expensive and operation is cheap". And given that construction is so expensive, it ruins the economic case for building new nuclear plants (imho).
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Operation is cheaper, but it is not cheap. The steam based thermodynamic cycle is very expensive compared to CCGT and even worse compared to gearbox into generator for wind power and solid state for solar. In this graph you have the marginal cost of traditional generation compared to total cost of new built renewables. https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png From Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy 2021. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
  - hardolaf 5y ago
    Lazard does not include the cost of storage to provide baseload power from renewables so it's largely a lie.
    - Gwypaas 5y ago
      > While historically large power grids used unvarying power plants to meet the base load, there is no specific technical requirement for this to be so. The base load can equally well be met by the appropriate quantity of intermittent power sources and dispatchable generation.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load#Description It is a straight LCOE shoot out. Storage may help at the limits but is a pure loss from a system perspective.
    - rstuart4133 5y ago

tomp 5y ago

Sounds like a good plan for the rest of the world to adapt, instead of subsidising coal, Saudi Arabia's dictatorship, and Russian tanks.