8 ms·

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?

by doikor 5y ago

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
      Nor does it include the cost of storage for nuclear. It's no accident Japan has the most pumped storage per unit of generation on the planet - it's because it has the most nuclear. Nuclear can't vary it's generation fast enough to match the daily variation in load. Admittedly you need much less storage (until a tsunami comes along). But pumped storage only costs around $1/watt. (The unit of $/watt rather than $/kWh because the dam is only a minor fraction of the cost of pumped storage, and it drops quadratically with size.) Storage + renewable generation still costs less than 1/2 of nuclear.

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?

by 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
    Nor does it include the cost of storage for nuclear. It's no accident Japan has the most pumped storage per unit of generation on the planet - it's because it has the most nuclear. Nuclear can't vary it's generation fast enough to match the daily variation in load. Admittedly you need much less storage (until a tsunami comes along). But pumped storage only costs around $1/watt. (The unit of $/watt rather than $/kWh because the dam is only a minor fraction of the cost of pumped storage, and it drops quadratically with size.) Storage + renewable generation still costs less than 1/2 of nuclear.