3 ms·

Here’s one critique of why the LCOE number is dangerous to use when comparing tech that’s as different as nuclear & solar: https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/n

Here’s one critique of why the LCOE number is dangerous to use when comparing tech that’s as different as nuclear & solar: https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/nuclear-wasted-why-the-cost-of-nuclear-energy-is-misunderstood https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/nuclear-wasted-why-the-co... For instance, LCOE frequently ignores imposed costs for using solar and wind since they’re intermittent sources. When you factor in those requirements it gets more expensive. The US is also fairly unique in terms of making nuclear more expensive. If we actually started building plants at scale to replace fossil fuel plants, the costs would decrease rapidly over time, especially as we switch to modern designs. No, the reason it gets built is not because of economic support for the military. It’s because it and hydro are the only non fossil fuel energy source that can provide base load power & run the entire grid 24/7 just like fossil fuels can. In fact, regulations are constantly trying to strangle nuclear and given it’s the only energy source that has repeatedly demonstrated to reduce fossil fuel demand, it’s interesting to consider why that might be (fossil fuel companies don’t care about solar and wind because it lets them greenwash the destruction they’re doing to the environment precisely because fossil fuel demand keeps growing in their presence and at best slightly decreases that curve but never creates a persistent downward trend) It’s also generally better than hydro because it’s much less destructive to the environment.

pydry 3y ago
>For instance, LCOE frequently ignores imposed costs for using solar and wind since they’re intermittent sources. Not frequently, always. But, note that it is not just cheaper it is 5x cheaper. If you pair solar + wind with pumped storage it is roughly 2x more expensive. Now it's a lot cheaper than 5x. If you pair solar + wind with batteries it roughly 3-4x more expensive. Still cheaper than 5x. If you pair solar + wind with hydrogen it is roughly 4x more expensive. Even if all solar and wind energy were stored as hydrogen and months later burned to produce electricity it would still be cheaper than nuclear power as well as being able to do load following. Note that nuclear power can't do load following at anything resembling a reasonable price. An all nuclear zero carbon grid would either need storage too or it would need to overproduce massively. >In fact, regulations are constantly trying to strangle nuclear and given it’s the only energy source that has repeatedly demonstrated to reduce fossil fuel demand If Congress wanted to really strangle nuclear power they wouldn't regulate it more they'd just repeal the indemnity act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... Insurance for a $1 trillion clean up event like Fukushima would normally be the responsibility of the parties that caused it but the nuclear industry gets to offload the cost of insuring that $1 trillion catastrophe event to joe taxpayer. This helps reduce the costs a lot but they still need lots of other subsidies (which they get).

pydry 3y ago

>For instance, LCOE frequently ignores imposed costs for using solar and wind since they’re intermittent sources. Not frequently, always. But, note that it is not just cheaper it is 5x cheaper. If you pair solar + wind with pumped storage it is roughly 2x more expensive. Now it's a lot cheaper than 5x. If you pair solar + wind with batteries it roughly 3-4x more expensive. Still cheaper than 5x. If you pair solar + wind with hydrogen it is roughly 4x more expensive. Even if all solar and wind energy were stored as hydrogen and months later burned to produce electricity it would still be cheaper than nuclear power as well as being able to do load following. Note that nuclear power can't do load following at anything resembling a reasonable price. An all nuclear zero carbon grid would either need storage too or it would need to overproduce massively. >In fact, regulations are constantly trying to strangle nuclear and given it’s the only energy source that has repeatedly demonstrated to reduce fossil fuel demand If Congress wanted to really strangle nuclear power they wouldn't regulate it more they'd just repeal the indemnity act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... Insurance for a $1 trillion clean up event like Fukushima would normally be the responsibility of the parties that caused it but the nuclear industry gets to offload the cost of insuring that $1 trillion catastrophe event to joe taxpayer. This helps reduce the costs a lot but they still need lots of other subsidies (which they get).