5 ms·

The reason it's over is because wind and solar have become cheaper than anything else. Solar is currently around $23/MWhr. Nuclear is around $70/MWhr, one of t

The reason it's over is because wind and solar have become cheaper than anything else. Solar is currently around $23/MWhr. Nuclear is around $70/MWhr, one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. Solar is highly distributeable so it can be placed closer to where the power is used, reducing transmission losses. It doesn't need to be very carefully sited in terms of where it goes on the grid, and nobody needs to worry about the long term geological stability of the area. It doesn't need to be partnered with another plant for cold starts. It has no safety concerns. It doesn't need any labor to operate - mostly occasional repairs to damage and cleaning. It has no capacity to cause any sort of disaster. It does not generate toxic waste in operation. Nobody has ever said "don't shoot tank rounds near that solar farm or you might cause thousands of square miles of land to be uninhabitable for centuries." Nobody has ever said "we need to be concerned about the potential for that solar farm to be used in a program to create weapons of mass destruction" The administration kowtowing to industry lobbyists to fund nuclear energy when the market was already adding seven times as much renewables as it is decommissioning nuclear capacity...is just corporate welfare, pure and simple.

pfdietz 2y ago
> Nobody has ever said "we need to be concerned about the potential for that solar farm to be used in a program to create weapons of mass destruction" Well, if hydrogen from electrolysis really takes off, it would be possible to piggyback an exchange tower on the system to also get heavy water production. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980IJHE....5..409H/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980IJHE....5..409H/abstra... (that's an old reference; the CECE process has since been driven to maturity by Canada.)
aethr 2y ago
Solar and wind definitely make the most sense wherever feasible, but it's important to keep in mind you can't just build solar and wind farms anywhere. China has moderately good solar capacity in the north, but generation there will be seasonal due to how far north it is. The north of China is also not close to the majority of the population, so transmission will be an issue. China's high to moderate quality solar capacity will be built out very quickly, and it won't provide enough to close the gap from fossil-based generation. From there, the cost of solar generation will rise as low quality capacity is developed. China will need a way to import some of their energy generation, possibly through by importing goods like iron and steel that have a high energy production cost, from countries like Australia that can produce them using renewable energy (green iron / green steel) using Australia's almost limitless solar resources. Since much of Australia's coal is also used in places like China to smelt their local and imported iron and steel, this could further drive down production of coal.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  China is building a nation spanning UHV ("ultra high voltage") power transmission system. > According to China Energy News, the combined length of the UHV transmission lines operating in China had reached 48,000km (30,000 miles) by the end of 2020, more than enough to wrap around the Earth by the equator. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241113-will-chinas-ultra-high-voltage-grid-pay-off-for-renewable-power https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241113-will-chinas-ultr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... https://www.bakerinstitute.org/chinas-energy-infrastructure https://www.bakerinstitute.org/chinas-energy-infrastructure
  - Animats 2y ago
    That's because the big energy sources are in northwest China, and the big loads are in southeast China near the coast. The US should have similar lines running east and west from the wind belt, which runs roughly from the Texas panhandle to the Canadian border. There's not enough transmission capacity out of that region. Some of this is due to opposition from the oil industry.
IcyWindows 2y ago
Solar doesn't work at night, so doesn't the cost need to include batteries?
- Filligree 2y ago
  It does, but battery prices have also been falling precipitously.
- epistasis 2y ago
  Solar + battery storage is cheaper than nuclear, and also far more flexible. Nuclear, as a baseload generator, is not capable of meeting demand peaks, so if we are going to require batteries for solar, we should require batteries for nuclear as well. Which does not help its case very much.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Solar + battery storage is cheaper than nuclear Solar + battery storage is cheaper than Vogtle, but Vogtle was an exercise in mismanagement before COVID caused it to be even worse. Compare: https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ > Nuclear, as a baseload generator, is not capable of meeting demand peaks, so if we are going to require batteries for solar, we should require batteries for nuclear as well. Being a baseload generator is what nuclear is used for. It doesn't require batteries because you're not trying to use it for demand peaks. Suppose you have 10GW of demand at night (minimum daily demand), 16GW at midday during peak solar generation and 20GW for two hours right after sunset (maximum daily demand). Do you want 20GW of nuclear? No, you want 10, to handle the first 10GW of demand at all times. That's baseload. Then you want another 10GW of solar, most of which is used directly during midday and the rest of which is used with storage to handle the demand peak just after sunset. Doing it this way means you only need storage for the amount the demand peak after sunset exceeds baseload, which might be 20GWh of storage, instead of needing enough storage to satisfy the entire demand all night, which could be 140GWh. It also improves resistance to low renewable generation because if renewable output is at 50% of normal for a week or more but the grid is half nuclear then the overall grid would have a 25% deficit instead of a 50% deficit. And then you need less in long-term storage, or peaker plants, to pick up that load.

pfdietz 2y ago

> Nobody has ever said "we need to be concerned about the potential for that solar farm to be used in a program to create weapons of mass destruction" Well, if hydrogen from electrolysis really takes off, it would be possible to piggyback an exchange tower on the system to also get heavy water production. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980IJHE....5..409H/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980IJHE....5..409H/abstra... (that's an old reference; the CECE process has since been driven to maturity by Canada.)

aethr 2y ago

Solar and wind definitely make the most sense wherever feasible, but it's important to keep in mind you can't just build solar and wind farms anywhere. China has moderately good solar capacity in the north, but generation there will be seasonal due to how far north it is. The north of China is also not close to the majority of the population, so transmission will be an issue. China's high to moderate quality solar capacity will be built out very quickly, and it won't provide enough to close the gap from fossil-based generation. From there, the cost of solar generation will rise as low quality capacity is developed. China will need a way to import some of their energy generation, possibly through by importing goods like iron and steel that have a high energy production cost, from countries like Australia that can produce them using renewable energy (green iron / green steel) using Australia's almost limitless solar resources. Since much of Australia's coal is also used in places like China to smelt their local and imported iron and steel, this could further drive down production of coal.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
China is building a nation spanning UHV ("ultra high voltage") power transmission system. > According to China Energy News, the combined length of the UHV transmission lines operating in China had reached 48,000km (30,000 miles) by the end of 2020, more than enough to wrap around the Earth by the equator. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241113-will-chinas-ultra-high-voltage-grid-pay-off-for-renewable-power https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241113-will-chinas-ultr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... https://www.bakerinstitute.org/chinas-energy-infrastructure https://www.bakerinstitute.org/chinas-energy-infrastructure
- Animats 2y ago
  That's because the big energy sources are in northwest China, and the big loads are in southeast China near the coast. The US should have similar lines running east and west from the wind belt, which runs roughly from the Texas panhandle to the Canadian border. There's not enough transmission capacity out of that region. Some of this is due to opposition from the oil industry.

IcyWindows 2y ago

Solar doesn't work at night, so doesn't the cost need to include batteries?

Filligree 2y ago
It does, but battery prices have also been falling precipitously.
epistasis 2y ago
Solar + battery storage is cheaper than nuclear, and also far more flexible. Nuclear, as a baseload generator, is not capable of meeting demand peaks, so if we are going to require batteries for solar, we should require batteries for nuclear as well. Which does not help its case very much.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Solar + battery storage is cheaper than nuclear Solar + battery storage is cheaper than Vogtle, but Vogtle was an exercise in mismanagement before COVID caused it to be even worse. Compare: https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ > Nuclear, as a baseload generator, is not capable of meeting demand peaks, so if we are going to require batteries for solar, we should require batteries for nuclear as well. Being a baseload generator is what nuclear is used for. It doesn't require batteries because you're not trying to use it for demand peaks. Suppose you have 10GW of demand at night (minimum daily demand), 16GW at midday during peak solar generation and 20GW for two hours right after sunset (maximum daily demand). Do you want 20GW of nuclear? No, you want 10, to handle the first 10GW of demand at all times. That's baseload. Then you want another 10GW of solar, most of which is used directly during midday and the rest of which is used with storage to handle the demand peak just after sunset. Doing it this way means you only need storage for the amount the demand peak after sunset exceeds baseload, which might be 20GWh of storage, instead of needing enough storage to satisfy the entire demand all night, which could be 140GWh. It also improves resistance to low renewable generation because if renewable output is at 50% of normal for a week or more but the grid is half nuclear then the overall grid would have a 25% deficit instead of a 50% deficit. And then you need less in long-term storage, or peaker plants, to pick up that load.