5 ms·

> What do they propose instead? A new nuclear plant, coal plant? Decreasing power needs by taxing everyone out of the state? (From the article) > Last year the

by grecy 3y ago

> What do they propose instead? A new nuclear plant, coal plant? Decreasing power needs by taxing everyone out of the state? (From the article) > Last year the Biden administration announced it would give PG&E a $1.1 billion grant to help keep the plant open. One idea: $1.1 billion dollars will buy around that many watts of installed solar, at today's prices. Vastly more in another decade.

krasin 3y ago
Yes. As much as I am a proponent of nuclear power, the proposed grant does not make sense to me - what exactly do they need this kind of money for? Operational expenses of properly built & operated nuclear plants are very low, which is the whole point. If there's a billion dollars required to keep it running, despite high energy prices in the state, something is very wrong.
- bruce511 3y ago
  A nuclear plant near me is currently undergoing "renovations" to extend the life of the plant. I know nothing of the california plant, but I suspect its in a similar situation. If so, the 1.1 billion is not running costs, but capital spent to renew parts of the plant, replace some parts and so on. The plants of the 70s were typically built with a projected 50 year life span, so extending it another 50% is not cheap, although cheaper than building a new one. Your point about solar is well made. But solar is not 27x7 so its not comparing an equivalent thing. Solar and wind are enormously useful, and I'm a fan, but they're not enough by themselves, and won't be until we figure out how to store gw of power. Running a nuclear plant in an earthquake zone is not ideal, but its hard to see any better alternatives at the moment.
  - krasin 3y ago
    >If so, the 1.1 billion is not running costs, but capital spent to renew parts of the plant, replace some parts and so on That would explain it. Thanks for the data point. > Your point about solar is well made. That's actually somebody else's point, not mine. :)
mtoner23 3y ago
That's probably not even enough money to buy the land or do the environmental reports to produce a similar amount of solar
parineum 3y ago
And how much do the batteries cost to store all that power?
aaronbwebber 3y ago
Great idea! Now to just find somewhere to put a billion dollars worth of solar PV in California, preferably somewhere where it doesn't ever get dark so the power will stay on at night.
- grecy 3y ago
  I was in the I15 recently and drove past those huge solar generating tower things. Seems like an enormous amount of nice sunny space out there close to HV lines. As for night time, sure, spend half the $1.1 billion on solar panels and the other half on batteries.
  - andyferris 3y ago
    Problem is it needs to be like 90% on batteries…
yuliyp 3y ago
How do you figure it'll give that much? Near as I can see large scale solar is a bit over $1/W so $1.1B would give you less than half as much power in the middle of the day, less spread out over time.
ars 3y ago
> $1.1 billion dollars will buy around that many watts of installed solar, at today's prices. Vastly more in another decade. The nuclear plant produces 2.2GW. Solar costs $1/W. So $1.1 billion will get you 1.1GW. The plant thus has twice the return on investment of solar - and is already here right now and doesn't need to be constructed. It makes more sense to shut the plant once no more coal or gas is being burned, rather than waste all that energy right now.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  It's hard to compare nuclear v/ solar because of availability. A well-run NPP can have much better than 80% uptime. A solar farm depends on the sun. So 1GW of nuclear capacity is worth more than 1GW of solar. Thus the very low prices being quoted for solar systems today are not entirely honest.
- grecy 3y ago
  As others have pointed out in this thread, the $1.1 billion is not running costs for the plant, that just covers some expenses to renew it. So actually getting a continuous 2.2GW from the nuclear plant will cost a lot more than $1.1 billion.
ThatPlayer 3y ago
California already has an issue with peak solar happening before peak demand. There's a rush to spin up all the natural gas power plants during peak demand. More solar doesn't really help with that, and is part of the problem because you can only spin up power plants so fast. They've named it the duck curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

by grecy 3y ago

krasin 3y ago

Yes. As much as I am a proponent of nuclear power, the proposed grant does not make sense to me - what exactly do they need this kind of money for? Operational expenses of properly built & operated nuclear plants are very low, which is the whole point. If there's a billion dollars required to keep it running, despite high energy prices in the state, something is very wrong.

bruce511 3y ago
A nuclear plant near me is currently undergoing "renovations" to extend the life of the plant. I know nothing of the california plant, but I suspect its in a similar situation. If so, the 1.1 billion is not running costs, but capital spent to renew parts of the plant, replace some parts and so on. The plants of the 70s were typically built with a projected 50 year life span, so extending it another 50% is not cheap, although cheaper than building a new one. Your point about solar is well made. But solar is not 27x7 so its not comparing an equivalent thing. Solar and wind are enormously useful, and I'm a fan, but they're not enough by themselves, and won't be until we figure out how to store gw of power. Running a nuclear plant in an earthquake zone is not ideal, but its hard to see any better alternatives at the moment.
- krasin 3y ago
  >If so, the 1.1 billion is not running costs, but capital spent to renew parts of the plant, replace some parts and so on That would explain it. Thanks for the data point. > Your point about solar is well made. That's actually somebody else's point, not mine. :)

mtoner23 3y ago

That's probably not even enough money to buy the land or do the environmental reports to produce a similar amount of solar

parineum 3y ago

And how much do the batteries cost to store all that power?

aaronbwebber 3y ago

Great idea! Now to just find somewhere to put a billion dollars worth of solar PV in California, preferably somewhere where it doesn't ever get dark so the power will stay on at night.

grecy 3y ago
I was in the I15 recently and drove past those huge solar generating tower things. Seems like an enormous amount of nice sunny space out there close to HV lines. As for night time, sure, spend half the $1.1 billion on solar panels and the other half on batteries.
- andyferris 3y ago
  Problem is it needs to be like 90% on batteries…

yuliyp 3y ago

How do you figure it'll give that much? Near as I can see large scale solar is a bit over $1/W so $1.1B would give you less than half as much power in the middle of the day, less spread out over time.

ars 3y ago

> $1.1 billion dollars will buy around that many watts of installed solar, at today's prices. Vastly more in another decade. The nuclear plant produces 2.2GW. Solar costs $1/W. So $1.1 billion will get you 1.1GW. The plant thus has twice the return on investment of solar - and is already here right now and doesn't need to be constructed. It makes more sense to shut the plant once no more coal or gas is being burned, rather than waste all that energy right now.

PaulHoule 3y ago
It's hard to compare nuclear v/ solar because of availability. A well-run NPP can have much better than 80% uptime. A solar farm depends on the sun. So 1GW of nuclear capacity is worth more than 1GW of solar. Thus the very low prices being quoted for solar systems today are not entirely honest.
grecy 3y ago
As others have pointed out in this thread, the $1.1 billion is not running costs for the plant, that just covers some expenses to renew it. So actually getting a continuous 2.2GW from the nuclear plant will cost a lot more than $1.1 billion.

ThatPlayer 3y ago

California already has an issue with peak solar happening before peak demand. There's a rush to spin up all the natural gas power plants during peak demand. More solar doesn't really help with that, and is part of the problem because you can only spin up power plants so fast. They've named it the duck curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve