3 ms·

I suppose you could complain to the grid operators that they're being unfair in buying the cheapest electricity rather than the more expensive stuff, but I'm no

I suppose you could complain to the grid operators that they're being unfair in buying the cheapest electricity rather than the more expensive stuff, but I'm not sure it will sway them much :) Is electricity in the US socialized? I thought they were all private companies, but you seem to be talking as though this is a political choice, rather than an economic one. I freely admit I don't know much about how the US operates its grids.

klabb3 4y ago
As a baseload source, it is likely that nuclear has been out-competed by "natural" gas, and other fossils (and hydro, where available), but when we start shutting those down, we're likely to want our nuclear back. Saying nuclear is uneconomical compared to wind/solar is dishonest without mentioning baseload (comparing price only when one source is abundant).
- trashtester 4y ago
  In practice, what seems to happen if you shut down nuclear in favour of renewables, is that renewables will replace maybe 30-50% of the nuclear power, and the rest will be covered by gas. The total price tends to end up around $0.15/kwh, plus taxes, or around the same as new nuclear, with all associated regulations. (but more than already established nuclear, or the cost nuclear should have if built economically). For those who really care about global warming, nuclear is still much better than such a mix. If you're really not worried about global warming, gas + renewables make a lot more sense. Especially if you don't want coal or nuclear "in your back yard".
sanderjd 4y ago
It's a mix. They are pretty much all private companies, but very heavily regulated. There are different degrees of regulation and a few different "deregulated" market structures, but there is a lot of government oversight even in the least regulated market (in Texas).

3 ms·

I suppose you could complain to the grid operators that they're being unfair in buying the cheapest electricity rather than the more expensive stuff, but I'm no

by revertmean 4y ago

klabb3 4y ago
As a baseload source, it is likely that nuclear has been out-competed by "natural" gas, and other fossils (and hydro, where available), but when we start shutting those down, we're likely to want our nuclear back. Saying nuclear is uneconomical compared to wind/solar is dishonest without mentioning baseload (comparing price only when one source is abundant).
- trashtester 4y ago
  In practice, what seems to happen if you shut down nuclear in favour of renewables, is that renewables will replace maybe 30-50% of the nuclear power, and the rest will be covered by gas. The total price tends to end up around $0.15/kwh, plus taxes, or around the same as new nuclear, with all associated regulations. (but more than already established nuclear, or the cost nuclear should have if built economically). For those who really care about global warming, nuclear is still much better than such a mix. If you're really not worried about global warming, gas + renewables make a lot more sense. Especially if you don't want coal or nuclear "in your back yard".
sanderjd 4y ago
It's a mix. They are pretty much all private companies, but very heavily regulated. There are different degrees of regulation and a few different "deregulated" market structures, but there is a lot of government oversight even in the least regulated market (in Texas).