4 ms·

I don’t see it happening in the United States. I’ll give a small example from my area of the country which is New England. We had 5 Nuclear power plants (one e

I don’t see it happening in the United States. I’ll give a small example from my area of the country which is New England. We had 5 Nuclear power plants (one each in ME, MA, NH, CT and VT) of which the last to be commissioned was in New Hampshire (Seabrook) in 1990. This took from the late 1960’s to 1990 to be commissioned with similar regulatory obstacles. Since 1990 Maine Yankee shut down in 1997 due to NRC safety concerns and additional money required to fix them. The plant operated from 1972 to 1997. Vermont Yankee shut down in 2014 due to overwhelming public support for not renewing it’s license to operate. The plant operated from 1972 to 2014. Pilgrim in Plymouth Mass shut down in 2019 due to the cost of safety upgrades. The plant operated from 1972 to 2019. Two Nuclear plants remain at Seabrook NH and Waterford CT. The New England energy market was deregulated in 1998 moving to a wholesale market run by New England ISO. Since 2000 older oil fired and coal fired generation plants have largely been replaced with Natural Gas. Recently renewables and net imports from other areas are trending higher. We have almost no coal or oil fired generation in the entire region today. The stated plan for NE ISO is to continue to pursue renewables. No new Nuclear projects are on the horizon. The current remaining reactors make up approx. 20-30% of the regions baseload power and are nearing end of life. The Nuclear plants require bailouts to continue to function. In 2019 CT mandated that half of the Waterford plants output was purchased for 10 years at 4.9 cents/kWh. While this increased customer bills initally, it recently saved money when Nat Gas spiked last year. It also saved a 25% spike in the regions total emissions if the plant were to close and be replaced by Nat Gas. A summary of some of the risks is explained here: https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/in-depth/power-plant-retirements https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/in-depth/power-plant...

ETH_start 3y ago
It would take a significant political shift — which would require a significant shift in public opinion about nuclear energy — for nuclear power to gain ground in the US. Nuclear energy needs to be not just tolerated, but desired as the energy source of the future, just as renewables have been over the last 50 years, with massive funding directed into R&D and subsidies for deployment. I don't think there's any disagreement with that. What would be required is: * A concerted effort to develop advanced nuclear reactor designs, particularly small modular reactors (SMRs). * Streamlining the regulatory process and adjusting its risk tolerances to more reasonable levels. * Subsidizing the deployment of advanced reactor types (e.g. SMRs) to create larger economies of scale. This would all be an extremely expensive endeavor, but the payoff would be robust market for small modular nuclear reactors that offer increasingly cost-competitive energy as production scales. Keep in mind that with nuclear, the overriding cost is manufacturing. The fuel costs are almost zero the land use is negligible, and the pollution is minimal. And of course as a base load source, there is no need for storage, unlike with intermittent energy sources, which do require it.
- chris222 3y ago
  Thats a good summary of what it would take but I really think the ship has sailed on Nuclear. I don’t think it will have a significant revival in the United States any time soon. We did have a chance to be like France in the early 1970’s and we were trending that way as I outlined for the NE region. For now the focus is all on renewables [wind, solar and lithium based storage]. Technology development is moving quickly and capital is being deployed. The aging Nuclear, Oil and Coal plants continue to shut down or be propped up for a few years until renewables fully take over.

ETH_start 3y ago

It would take a significant political shift — which would require a significant shift in public opinion about nuclear energy — for nuclear power to gain ground in the US. Nuclear energy needs to be not just tolerated, but desired as the energy source of the future, just as renewables have been over the last 50 years, with massive funding directed into R&D and subsidies for deployment. I don't think there's any disagreement with that. What would be required is: * A concerted effort to develop advanced nuclear reactor designs, particularly small modular reactors (SMRs). * Streamlining the regulatory process and adjusting its risk tolerances to more reasonable levels. * Subsidizing the deployment of advanced reactor types (e.g. SMRs) to create larger economies of scale. This would all be an extremely expensive endeavor, but the payoff would be robust market for small modular nuclear reactors that offer increasingly cost-competitive energy as production scales. Keep in mind that with nuclear, the overriding cost is manufacturing. The fuel costs are almost zero the land use is negligible, and the pollution is minimal. And of course as a base load source, there is no need for storage, unlike with intermittent energy sources, which do require it.

chris222 3y ago
Thats a good summary of what it would take but I really think the ship has sailed on Nuclear. I don’t think it will have a significant revival in the United States any time soon. We did have a chance to be like France in the early 1970’s and we were trending that way as I outlined for the NE region. For now the focus is all on renewables [wind, solar and lithium based storage]. Technology development is moving quickly and capital is being deployed. The aging Nuclear, Oil and Coal plants continue to shut down or be propped up for a few years until renewables fully take over.