4 ms·

They are pretty much everywhere nowadays, because they're such good investments. The fact that they're intermittent is a big problem for nuclear and other "cons

They are pretty much everywhere nowadays, because they're such good investments. The fact that they're intermittent is a big problem for nuclear and other "constant" power sources, resulting in their gradual disappearance. More renewables will make this happen even faster. The problem is that this is not necessarily good for the grid as a whole if there are no power sources that can fill in when renewables aren't producing as much, while they at the same time have priced the stable sources out of the market.

trashtester 4y ago
> The problem is that this is not necessarily good for the grid as a whole I agree. Average electricity prices seem to be higher the more renewables are available in a given area. It seems to me that this, in part, is due to the pricing mechanisms available. Let's say a nuclear based energy company could sell power to its customers at a fixed price, where the customer would commit to buying this even when the spot price went lower. Now, let's also assume that the customer would only pay for the grid capacity needed to transfer this power from the local power plant. If companies selling wind power needed a grid capable of transmitting the power from the other side of the continent, that extra cost would be slapped on top of the wind power, NOT other power sources. In sum, this should make it possible to sell the nuclear power to consumers at prices moderatly above the production cost (plus taxes, local grid costs and reasonable profits). For old nuclear plants (or those built at the prices available in Korea or China), this would make the price to the consumer quite competitive, if not outright cheaper than energy mixes based on renewables and natural gas. Also, there is nothing technical that prevents us from building nuclear plants at the safety standards of those plants, with designs from about 1970 not only at the same price (inflation adjusted) as back then, but even much cheaper, due to technological developments. If so, I would expect production costs below $20/MWh. This would still cause less total harm per TWh than any other stable power mix available today. What prevents this seems to be regulations at every level, where nuclear is burdened with all sorts of extra costs, ranging from insane security requirements and other red tape, limits on pricing in many markets, having to pay for the extra grid capacity required by renewable sources, excessive taxes or deposits for externalities that is not required for other energy sources. Now let's say all power sources were held to the same standards when it comes to externalities such as safety/harm caused. This would mean that wind would have to deposit enough funds to ensure proper recycling of blades at end-of-life (or at the very least, safe storage). Ditto for solar. Hydrocarbons have the same allowances for toxic substances as nuclear, in terms lives lost and diseases caused. The harm from greenhouse gases could also be priced in this way. Grid costs would be allocated proportionally to grid capacity requirements. If we do this, I'm convinced Nuclear would come out as the cheaper than renewables combined with enough hydrocarbon plants (or batteries) to even out the variability of the production capacity. If all power source were punished the same as nuclear for any risks, they would be impossibly expensive. If the demands on nuclear were reduced to the same levels as other sources, it would become dirt cheap.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  All of these changes would favour solar + battery to a rather ridiculous degree. Especially given recycling PV is already mandatory in civilised countries and costs very little (and will likely be revenue positive as supply chains mature). Nuclear waste management funds would also have to increase, the industry would have to pay its fair share for security and liability limits (ie. Free public insurance) would have to go away to be fair as well. The nuclear industry would also have to actually remediate the uranium mines which it has historically never done. Wind also has to pay for decomissioning in many cases, and it doesn't really alter the costs because dealing with 10kg/kW of fiberglass is insignificant and recycling the other materials is revenue positive. You'd also be double charging many renewable projects (especially offshore wind) because the frequently include the costs of transmission. And every time your nuclear plant at one end of the state went offline for two months for refuelling and maintenance you'd be paying more than the wind turbines for transmission. If your impossible to solve for or fairly charge market came about, the net result is no-one would build anything other than parking lot and commercial rooftop solar + battery storage or at-site renewables for industrial until around 60-90% of demand was met. Then nuclear still wouldn't be remotely viable, but it would be harder to build wind and pumped hydro. And your fantasy about 70s reactors is based on them getting free money, a workforce with free training, free design work, using completely different accounting methods and resulting in designs that were only online half the time. During entire period before TMI construction costs were rising >20% yoy. The incoherence of the claims about APRs being cheaper than big heavy reactors, then bigger heavier reactors being cheaper, then SMRs being cheaper all for opposite reasons would be kind of amusing if public officials didn't keep falling for them. > What prevents this seems to be regulations at every level, where nuclear is burdened with all sorts of extra costs, ranging from insane security requirements and other red tape, limits on pricing in many markets, having to pay for the extra grid capacity required by renewable sources, excessive taxes or deposits for externalities that is not required for other energy sources. These 'ridiculous' regulations constantly prove themselves necessary for preventing multi-trillion dollar damages to the public. Barely a year goes by where there isn't an operator or builder caught doing at least one and often two of the five simultaneous colossally stupid things that have to happen simultaneously to cause a proper meltdown. The strict rules are the only reason there's yet to be an actually bad plant failure or mishandling of Pu239 or waste. Even with regulations preventing a major failure, ukraine and japan are spending enough on cleanup and economic damage to use up over half of your $20/MWh for every joule ever produced by a nuclear reactor anywhere on the planet.

trashtester 4y ago

> The problem is that this is not necessarily good for the grid as a whole I agree. Average electricity prices seem to be higher the more renewables are available in a given area. It seems to me that this, in part, is due to the pricing mechanisms available. Let's say a nuclear based energy company could sell power to its customers at a fixed price, where the customer would commit to buying this even when the spot price went lower. Now, let's also assume that the customer would only pay for the grid capacity needed to transfer this power from the local power plant. If companies selling wind power needed a grid capable of transmitting the power from the other side of the continent, that extra cost would be slapped on top of the wind power, NOT other power sources. In sum, this should make it possible to sell the nuclear power to consumers at prices moderatly above the production cost (plus taxes, local grid costs and reasonable profits). For old nuclear plants (or those built at the prices available in Korea or China), this would make the price to the consumer quite competitive, if not outright cheaper than energy mixes based on renewables and natural gas. Also, there is nothing technical that prevents us from building nuclear plants at the safety standards of those plants, with designs from about 1970 not only at the same price (inflation adjusted) as back then, but even much cheaper, due to technological developments. If so, I would expect production costs below $20/MWh. This would still cause less total harm per TWh than any other stable power mix available today. What prevents this seems to be regulations at every level, where nuclear is burdened with all sorts of extra costs, ranging from insane security requirements and other red tape, limits on pricing in many markets, having to pay for the extra grid capacity required by renewable sources, excessive taxes or deposits for externalities that is not required for other energy sources. Now let's say all power sources were held to the same standards when it comes to externalities such as safety/harm caused. This would mean that wind would have to deposit enough funds to ensure proper recycling of blades at end-of-life (or at the very least, safe storage). Ditto for solar. Hydrocarbons have the same allowances for toxic substances as nuclear, in terms lives lost and diseases caused. The harm from greenhouse gases could also be priced in this way. Grid costs would be allocated proportionally to grid capacity requirements. If we do this, I'm convinced Nuclear would come out as the cheaper than renewables combined with enough hydrocarbon plants (or batteries) to even out the variability of the production capacity. If all power source were punished the same as nuclear for any risks, they would be impossibly expensive. If the demands on nuclear were reduced to the same levels as other sources, it would become dirt cheap.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
All of these changes would favour solar + battery to a rather ridiculous degree. Especially given recycling PV is already mandatory in civilised countries and costs very little (and will likely be revenue positive as supply chains mature). Nuclear waste management funds would also have to increase, the industry would have to pay its fair share for security and liability limits (ie. Free public insurance) would have to go away to be fair as well. The nuclear industry would also have to actually remediate the uranium mines which it has historically never done. Wind also has to pay for decomissioning in many cases, and it doesn't really alter the costs because dealing with 10kg/kW of fiberglass is insignificant and recycling the other materials is revenue positive. You'd also be double charging many renewable projects (especially offshore wind) because the frequently include the costs of transmission. And every time your nuclear plant at one end of the state went offline for two months for refuelling and maintenance you'd be paying more than the wind turbines for transmission. If your impossible to solve for or fairly charge market came about, the net result is no-one would build anything other than parking lot and commercial rooftop solar + battery storage or at-site renewables for industrial until around 60-90% of demand was met. Then nuclear still wouldn't be remotely viable, but it would be harder to build wind and pumped hydro. And your fantasy about 70s reactors is based on them getting free money, a workforce with free training, free design work, using completely different accounting methods and resulting in designs that were only online half the time. During entire period before TMI construction costs were rising >20% yoy. The incoherence of the claims about APRs being cheaper than big heavy reactors, then bigger heavier reactors being cheaper, then SMRs being cheaper all for opposite reasons would be kind of amusing if public officials didn't keep falling for them. > What prevents this seems to be regulations at every level, where nuclear is burdened with all sorts of extra costs, ranging from insane security requirements and other red tape, limits on pricing in many markets, having to pay for the extra grid capacity required by renewable sources, excessive taxes or deposits for externalities that is not required for other energy sources. These 'ridiculous' regulations constantly prove themselves necessary for preventing multi-trillion dollar damages to the public. Barely a year goes by where there isn't an operator or builder caught doing at least one and often two of the five simultaneous colossally stupid things that have to happen simultaneously to cause a proper meltdown. The strict rules are the only reason there's yet to be an actually bad plant failure or mishandling of Pu239 or waste. Even with regulations preventing a major failure, ukraine and japan are spending enough on cleanup and economic damage to use up over half of your $20/MWh for every joule ever produced by a nuclear reactor anywhere on the planet.