4 ms·

"Nuclear power can play a major role in enabling secure transitions to low emissions energy systems" No it can't, it has fundamentally lost the LCOE war with S

"Nuclear power can play a major role in enabling secure transitions to low emissions energy systems" No it can't, it has fundamentally lost the LCOE war with Solar and Wind, and those are still improving in cost. The steady drumbeat of "please save the fundamentally uncompetitive nuclear industry" is getting annoying. This is an industry that, probably due to its regulation, is used to lobbying and astroturfing to try to sustain political relevance. But it has no economic relevance. China is getting an MSR/LFTR power planet up soon. That will be fascinating to watch, but just doesn't work in free markets. And you can't even legally research them in the US. I would recommend research and development around next gen nuclear, but all the regulations in the US are so poisoned we'd never accomplish anything radical that would be needed to make nuclear competitive.

zen_1 4y ago
> just doesn't work in free markets > You can't even legally research them in the US I think I see a contradiction here.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Research results are portable. Every single nuke put into commercial operation, since the first, has depended for continued viability on coercion, either by direct taxpayer-funded handouts or by overcharging ratepayers in captive markets, usually both. There is no reasonable prospect for improvement. Nukes were always the most expensive choice, and are less competitive now than ever before.
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    Basically you're saying that Nuclear energy bad. No fix. Trust me.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Nuclear energy found to be far from cost effective, less so every year. Ten year prospect not looking good.
  - ehvatum 4y ago
    I can only assume you are heavily invested in natural gas. The Diablo Canyon plant in CA has a cost basis around 10c per kWh, which covers all expenses including reactor construction, fueling, waste disposal, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      And indemnification? No, that is picked by taxpayers. And, steam turbine maintenance? Doubting. I know that they are not paying into a disposal fund anymore, and are instead actually getting massive payouts, a product of a dodgy lawsuit. (Court decided the feds had no actual plans for disposal, and therefore the money for that was collected fraudulently and had to be given back: NOT to ratepayers, of course, but to operators of still-running plants.)
Manuel_D 4y ago
Comparing levelized cost of energy between intermittent and non intermittent sources is comparing apples to oranges. The reality is that until some fantastic storage system comes along that makes storage effectively free, intermittent sources cannot provide a path to decarbonization.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  We do not need a "fantastic" storage system. Ordinary dirt-cheap storage will do fine. Batteries are the most expensive alternative. Of course it would be stupid to build out storage until after there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. In the meantime, money is overwhelmingly better spent pushing toward that goal. When the time is right to build out storage, it will be very cheap, as storage cost is falling faster than solar ever did.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    And what system will provide this "ordinary dirt-cheap storage"? It'd be helpful to actually specify what you're proposing. Furthermore, some energy markets have seen saturation during peak production hours of intermittent sources for years now. But this unspecified dirt-cheap energy storage isn't being built to capture and resell this energy. This "ordinary dirt-cheap storage" is precisely the fantastic storage system I'm referring to. Plans for a primarily renewable grid assume that some breakthrough is going to happen in order to make storage dirt-cheap.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Or, maybe they are not stupid, and recognize the excess is because the gas plants cannot be shut down and restarted fast enough, and there is not actually enough renewable capacity yet to charge anything much. Until there is a lot more such generating capacity, it would be stupid to divert capital from building that out to building only minimally useful storage.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
ncmncm 4y ago
I just found out the US DoE fronted $1.4B of taxpayers' money to some utility to turn around and hand over to NuScale. China will mothball its nukes as their power gets undercut by renewables. We have great difficulty mothballing expensive stuff, so instead continue operating them at a net loss for years, making ratepayers or taxpayers pony up the difference.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  >”China will mothball its nukes as their power gets undercut by renewables.” What is the basis for this? Is there any indication from the Chinese Government that this is a real policy or is this just pure speculation?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Chinese are quite aware of cost disparities, and abandon what is not performing. They do tend to overbuild. They have scheduled a great deal of renewables, but those will not be enough to displace everything else for some time.

zen_1 4y ago

> just doesn't work in free markets > You can't even legally research them in the US I think I see a contradiction here.

ncmncm 4y ago
Research results are portable. Every single nuke put into commercial operation, since the first, has depended for continued viability on coercion, either by direct taxpayer-funded handouts or by overcharging ratepayers in captive markets, usually both. There is no reasonable prospect for improvement. Nukes were always the most expensive choice, and are less competitive now than ever before.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  Basically you're saying that Nuclear energy bad. No fix. Trust me.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Nuclear energy found to be far from cost effective, less so every year. Ten year prospect not looking good.
- ehvatum 4y ago
  I can only assume you are heavily invested in natural gas. The Diablo Canyon plant in CA has a cost basis around 10c per kWh, which covers all expenses including reactor construction, fueling, waste disposal, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    And indemnification? No, that is picked by taxpayers. And, steam turbine maintenance? Doubting. I know that they are not paying into a disposal fund anymore, and are instead actually getting massive payouts, a product of a dodgy lawsuit. (Court decided the feds had no actual plans for disposal, and therefore the money for that was collected fraudulently and had to be given back: NOT to ratepayers, of course, but to operators of still-running plants.)

Manuel_D 4y ago

Comparing levelized cost of energy between intermittent and non intermittent sources is comparing apples to oranges. The reality is that until some fantastic storage system comes along that makes storage effectively free, intermittent sources cannot provide a path to decarbonization.

ncmncm 4y ago
We do not need a "fantastic" storage system. Ordinary dirt-cheap storage will do fine. Batteries are the most expensive alternative. Of course it would be stupid to build out storage until after there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. In the meantime, money is overwhelmingly better spent pushing toward that goal. When the time is right to build out storage, it will be very cheap, as storage cost is falling faster than solar ever did.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  And what system will provide this "ordinary dirt-cheap storage"? It'd be helpful to actually specify what you're proposing. Furthermore, some energy markets have seen saturation during peak production hours of intermittent sources for years now. But this unspecified dirt-cheap energy storage isn't being built to capture and resell this energy. This "ordinary dirt-cheap storage" is precisely the fantastic storage system I'm referring to. Plans for a primarily renewable grid assume that some breakthrough is going to happen in order to make storage dirt-cheap.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Or, maybe they are not stupid, and recognize the excess is because the gas plants cannot be shut down and restarted fast enough, and there is not actually enough renewable capacity yet to charge anything much. Until there is a lot more such generating capacity, it would be stupid to divert capital from building that out to building only minimally useful storage.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

I just found out the US DoE fronted $1.4B of taxpayers' money to some utility to turn around and hand over to NuScale. China will mothball its nukes as their power gets undercut by renewables. We have great difficulty mothballing expensive stuff, so instead continue operating them at a net loss for years, making ratepayers or taxpayers pony up the difference.

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”China will mothball its nukes as their power gets undercut by renewables.” What is the basis for this? Is there any indication from the Chinese Government that this is a real policy or is this just pure speculation?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Chinese are quite aware of cost disparities, and abandon what is not performing. They do tend to overbuild. They have scheduled a great deal of renewables, but those will not be enough to displace everything else for some time.