Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power?

[nwdiver]

Fair enough.

When I finally do get to that point I will certainly research all my options. If it can help me buy a Model S sablemate for my Model 3...I'm all for it!

Dan

Yep... that's really the way to look at grid-tie vs off-grid. With grid-tie you spend A LOT less and displace A LOT more fossil fuels. Off-grid is typically 2-3x the cost of grid-tie. Batteries can still be useful... I have battery back up. But why cycle your batteries when you can use the grid (Peak hours aside)? Why curtail excess energy when you could export?

wk057s project is a good example of the costs of an off-grid system. Don't get me wrong... it's an incredible feat... it's a lot of really great things... but cost effective ain't one of 'em. He generated 44MWh when a grid-tied system the size of his should have generated >60MWh... that's curtailment. And he still had to import ~1.6% of his energy.... don't get me wrong... that's still impressive. But he could have exported 50% more energy than he consumed for less than half the cost....

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Yep... that's really the way to look at grid-tie vs off-grid. With grid-tie you spend A LOT less and displace A LOT more fossil fuels. Off-grid is typically 2-3x the cost of grid-tie. Batteries can still be useful... I have battery back up. But why cycle your batteries when you can use the grid (Peak hours aside)? Why curtail excess energy when you could export?

wk057s project is a good example of the costs of an off-grid system. Don't get me wrong... it's an incredible feat... it's a lot of really great things... but cost effective ain't one of 'em. He generated 44MWh when a grid-tied system the size of his should have generated >60MWh... that's curtailment. And he still had to import ~1.6% of his energy.... don't get me wrong... that's still impressive. But he could have exported 50% more energy than he consumed for less than half the cost....

Totally get it.

I tend to look at it this way...in three years when I will seriously be able to consider something like this, where will the technology be? Suffice it to say that I am not a big fan of doing business with utility companies. Just not very consumer based and I have been burned a few times. I really like the idea of being self sufficient but on the other hand I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face either. We'll see where the technology is when the time comes and go from there. Sort of like the car situation. My Model 3 will almost certainly seem like an antique in three years compared to where the technology will be by then.

Dan

 

[CalDreamin]

The great debate among carbon free resources continues, on TMC.

The fact is Diablo Canyon, Fort Calhoun, Yankee, Pilgrim, Quad Cities, Clinton and SONGs are all very recent, or coming, nuclear closures to be heavily back-filled by natural gas, and coal. I think that is where the debate centers, for North Americans. New is pretty much dead here, accept for already in construction plants (2). Closing 2016 was NY's $17-38 nuke subsidy, and US (R) Senate discussions of a $35/ton sequestration tax-credit, for coal. It doesn't look like tax-credits will be threatened, as much as doled out for the fossil fuel industry. Elon, and many others talk carbon pricing, but it was practically as amusing as Trump getting elected, to see the Left shoot down CO2 pricing because of social interest groups. Ones that effectively wanted their cut of the proceeds (yes, WA). Once sorted out, lets hope a price puts the hate on CO2 instead.

Resources such as Diablo Canyon could have been re-licensed in 2025, and witnessed much higher capacity factors with those batteries, but instead there will be that other 50%, mostly fossil fired, pool of resources chugging when California's sun doesn't shine. It's why EPA sees sector CO2 falling only 10-20%, over 15 years. There are the multiple ways of solving the world's CO2 problems, the "blue squares" etc., and then there's policy, property rights and perception. Those last items amount to a 2 degree punch in the face, and then some.

Bad example... Diablo Canyon is going to be replaced by renewables, efficiency, and storage.
PG&E to close Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, replace it with renewables, efficiency, storage

 

[miimura]

Bad example... Diablo Canyon is going to be replaced by renewables, efficiency, and storage.
PG&E to close Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, replace it with renewables, efficiency, storage

You missed a very good reply up-thread to this issue. It's a semantic argument to justify closing Diablo Canyon. If Diablo were to remain online, those renewables, efficiency, and storage would offset fossil fuels instead and lower CO2 emissions. With a significant price on carbon emissions, I'm sure they could rejigger the numbers so it would make sense to renew Diablo Canyon's license and keep it online.

 

[GSP]

You missed a very good reply up-thread to this issue. It's a semantic argument to justify closing Diablo Canyon. If Diablo were to remain online, those renewables, efficiency, and storage would offset fossil fuels instead and lower CO2 emissions. With a significant price on carbon emissions, I'm sure they could rejigger the numbers so it would make sense to renew Diablo Canyon's license and keep it online.

It is not that simple. There is a large pumped hydro storage right next to the Diablo canyon plant. It must be kept nearly full as a contingency in case the plant shuts down. This storage will only be available for integration of wind and solar if the plant is shut down. There is lots of good info in the "Plan B" document linked in the Utility Dive article that I linked upthread.

PG&E claims that all of the energy efficiency, demand response, storage, and renewables are additional to what would be brought on line if the plant were to be kept open. I think some people are going to believe them, and others not so much. I suggest actually reading their plan and monitoring what they actually end up doing.

GSP

 

[jackfrosty7]

It definitely seems as though Tesla and Solar Energy will kill Nuclear in the near future. Unless fusion becomes scalable and stable in the near future, solar will dominate. Lithium ion batteries are a limitation but we are looking into new batteries that can store more energy for longer periods of time. On top of solar being increasingly more cost effective, it also has much more support from the general populous when compared to fossil fuels and even nuclear energy.

 

[nwdiver]

Unless fusion becomes scalable and stable in the near future,

.... we don't even have a proof of concept yet..... we don't even have a plan for a proof of concept....

 

[WannabeOwner]

, I'll be happy as a lark to "waste" whatever solar I might harvest above what I need.

How about: if you export your excess then there is less pollution from fossil fuel generation - that you and those around you have to breath. Of course your contribution is tiny, overall, but all your mates will be impressed with what you have achieved and I predict that you'll start a ground-swell. You can still buy $0 from the utilities, if you get to 100% production / storage, and hopefully by the time you get to this project the rebate-rates in USA for export will be generous enough to make it worthwhile (maybe they are already? they are certainly "useful" in the UK)

 

[neroden]

So, the thing is, the utilities typically don't let you connect -- at all! -- if you just want to export excess and don't want to import anything. Don't-ask-me-why.

 

[nwdiver]

So, the thing is, the utilities typically don't let you connect -- at all! -- if you just want to export excess and don't want to import anything. Don't-ask-me-why.

A utility not allowing you to connect is certainly not typical... that would be extremely unusual and illegal in most states.

Here are the interconnection rules for NY gas and electric.

 

[neroden]

A utility not allowing you to connect is certainly not typical... that would be extremely unusual and illegal in most states.

Here are the interconnection rules for NY gas and electric.

See IV C 2 which prohibits feeding back to the grid. This is the section which applies if you are deemed not to qualify for net metering (perhaps because you have a battery).

Also if you want to use IV C 3, see section VIII which makes getting interconnection for a small generator prohibitively expensive

This is the scenario where you are not using any electricity from the grid and are only feeding electricity to it when you have excess. You have the choice of interconnecting, paying for the connection, and not being allowed to send electricity back to the grid, which is stupid financially; or applying as if you were a coal power plant and spending huge fees to do so, which is also stupid financially.

Basically neither is going to work. If you have your needs covered and don't need the grid as backup, your only financially sound option is to go off the grid; it makes no sense to *pay* the grid operator to give them your excess.

It's exasperating, but the fact is if you are building enough to go off grid, the grid doesn't want your excess power and will actually charge you money to give the power to them.

 

[Schumpeter]

.... we don't even have a proof of concept yet..... we don't even have a plan for a proof of concept....

Correct. Secondly, the levelised cost of energy of renewables (wind/solar depending on the region) is lower than Nuclear nowadays. Offshore wind is at 5 cents and solar even lower in desert/sunny areas.

I dont see any new nuclear plants being build in the Western world after fiasco's like Hinkley Point in the UK. The question is when are existing Nuke's going out of business. This off course takes more time...

 

[ecarfan]

This PUC filing by Tesla, dated Dec 4, 2017, may be of interest for this thread.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M201/K923/201923970.PDF

Tesla is filing in support of the proposed closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California, saying that more than just “energy efficiency” should be considered when developing new power generation facilities to replace the Diablo plant output, and that “renewables paired with storage” are the most cost-effective and reliable power sources. Which seems obvious to me, but of course there are powerful fossil fuel interests that do not agree.

 

[Kbra]

This PUC filing by Tesla, dated Dec 4, 2017, may be of interest for this thread.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M201/K923/201923970.PDF

Tesla is filing in support of the proposed closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California, saying that more than just “energy efficiency” should be considered when developing new power generation facilities to replace the Diablo plant output, and that “renewables paired with storage” are the most cost-effective and reliable power sources. Which seems obvious to me, but of course there are powerful fossil fuel interests that do not agree.

Replacing a clean carbon free mass source of power with another (carbon free after production and mining) source gets us no where. What Elon should be advocating for is adding powerpacks to the existing grid near Diablo Canyon to take the excess power during short windows of the day. Or the state can say hey let's stop buying 30% of our power from out of state and use what we got here. Elon just wants to tap into more of those federal credits to get more sales. Can't blame the guy necessarily for doing it but it's not because he's making a save the environment stance. As a rocket owning company he's well aware of the need for nuclear power.

 

[nwdiver]

Replacing a clean carbon free mass source of power with another (carbon free after production and mining) source gets us no where. What Elon should be advocating for is adding powerpacks to the existing grid near Diablo Canyon to take the excess power during short windows of the day. Or the state can say hey let's stop buying 30% of our power from out of state and use what we got here. Elon just wants to tap into more of those federal credits to get more sales. Can't blame the guy necessarily for doing it but it's not because he's making a save the environment stance. As a rocket owning company he's well aware of the need for nuclear power.

Bailing out a clean energy source that is no longer economically viable doesn't help advance clean energy. California is already curtailing wind energy... so for an increasing percentage of the day it's already a MW of nuclear OR a MW of wind. Killing the Plant will free up funds to allow even more wind and solar. If we can generate ~16TWh/yr from nuclear by keeping Diablo Canyon alive OR ~20TWh/yr from additional wind with the same $$$ why choose nuclear?

Energy sources aren't 'magic' there are hourly constraints. If you want ~70% of your energy to come from wind you might need 50GW of wind in a market that has a peak demand of 30GW... this means that you're curtailing wind for significant portions of the day... which means there's no market for large thermal plants like Diablo Canyon... since the cost to operate a nuclear plant is almost entirely independent the the amount of energy they generate it's not long before it's cheaper to retire the plant than keep it operating at a lower and lower capacity factor.

 

[transpondster]

you mean replacing zero-emissions plant which pays taxes with wind which receives tax credits is bailing out?.. The only reason Diablo Canyon will be closing because someone decided that once-through cooling must be replaced with cooling towers...

 

[nwdiver]

you mean replacing zero-emissions plant which pays taxes with wind which receives tax credits is bailing out?.. The only reason Diablo Canyon will be closing because someone decided that once-through cooling must be replaced with cooling towers...

It costs ~$70/MWh to generate power from Diablo canyon and that cost rises with every MW of wind or solar added to the CA grid. Wind costs <$20/MWh. That cost difference is paid by rate payers. Wind doesn't 'NEED' PTC. Those exist to accelerate the expansion of wind... not sustain it. On the other hand nuclear DOES require subsidies like the Price-Anderson act to survive.

 

[mspohr]

Replacing a clean carbon free mass source of power with another (carbon free after production and mining) source gets us no where. What Elon should be advocating for is adding powerpacks to the existing grid near Diablo Canyon to take the excess power during short windows of the day. Or the state can say hey let's stop buying 30% of our power from out of state and use what we got here. Elon just wants to tap into more of those federal credits to get more sales. Can't blame the guy necessarily for doing it but it's not because he's making a save the environment stance. As a rocket owning company he's well aware of the need for nuclear power.

Trying to understand what you are saying here...

"Elon just wants to tap into more of those federal credits to get more sales." The production credits are for wind. Elon doesn't sell windmills (yet)

Nuclear is carbon free but definitely not pollution free (and high cost) so it must be replaced. Most of the power California buys from out of state is hydro. We don't need to be parochial. A regional grid is a good thing. The carbon footprint of the power is what matters.

"As a rocket owning company he's well aware of the need for nuclear power."
Confusion here. Rockets are not nuclear powered. Rocket fuel is not nuclear. Space is not nuclear powered. What are you saying?

 

[3mp_kwh]

This PUC filing by Tesla, dated Dec 4, 2017, may be of interest for this thread.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M201/K923/201923970.PDF

Tesla is filing in support of the proposed closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California, saying that more than just “energy efficiency” should be considered when developing new power generation facilities to replace the Diablo plant output, and that “renewables paired with storage” are the most cost-effective and reliable power sources. Which seems obvious to me, but of course there are powerful fossil fuel interests that do not agree.

You can cut self-interest with a knife, in power. Basically, California policy sees nuclear waste as more harmful than carbon dioxide. There's no hiding from this. There's also no hiding from calling nuclear too expensive, and watching CO2 stay flat (or rise, in the case of MA). When a grid has lots of fossil energy, and you let carbon-free resources into a cage match, CO2 is the loser.

Nuclear doesn't cost $70/MWh, generally. Not even close. More like $20, plus recent analysis that adds another $10 if we're looking at plants in the PJM, Millstone and other large dual-reactor sites. That's why, generally speaking, *existing* nuclear plants are struggling where power prices are mired in the $30's/MWh. If we shut windmills, coal plants, and solar farms (or constrained their capacity factors), they, too, would start costing $70, $80, $100+/MWh. Add PTC and ITC back, and many already do.

Tesla's self-interest likely builds around land based windmills high over-night production, and lower relative daytime output. There's a higher call for batteries from shifting solar generation into the evening, and eventually doing the same with wind. But, by far and away, the most economical thing to do (barring a high price on nuclear-risk) is to fund existing nuclear, and shift more of its 24/7 generation into the daytime. This, along with renewables takes the real bite out of the US power sector's 2Gt of annual emissions. Illinois and New York made this choice. Others are happy residential power prices are rising. It's good for conservation, or what can amount to yet another industrial self-interest.

Renewables and efficiencies have powerful political advocates behind them. Natural gas is "Clean", just like the Clean Power Plan says it is (rate-based scoring). Utilities want to close everything down, and build it all over again. If you're focused on low-priced CO2 reduction, in many states you might feel under-represented.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear doesn't cost $70/MWh, generally. Not even close. More like $20, plus recent analysis that adds another $10 if we're looking at plants in the PJM, Millstone and other large dual-reactor sites. That's why, generally speaking, *existing* nuclear plants are struggling where power prices are mired in the $30's/MWh. If we shut windmills, coal plants, and solar farms (or constrained their capacity factors), they, too, would start costing $70, $80, $100+/MWh. Add PTC and ITC back, and many already do.

Diablo Cayon reports their O&M costs are ~$70/MWh... do you have data that says their lying? The industry average is $40/MWh for EXISTING nuclear. If Vogtle ever gets built their capital costs alone will be ~$80/MWh + ~$20/MWh for O&M + ~$7/MWh for fuel.... That's >$100/MWh to add more nuclear. Meanwhile wind now costs ~$20/MWh. Utility scale solar is ~$30/MWh and unlike nuclear BOTH are getting cheaper every year.

If we want to keep adding MORE clean energy the ONLY sources that are cost-effective are wind and solar. How much more expensive does nuclear have to get compared to wind & solar before people accept this reality? 5x isn't enough? Really?

As we add more wind & solar and those sources can carry demand for more and more of the day it makes less and less sense to keep a nuclear plant around that costs about the same whether it's generating 1MWh/yr or 1TWh/yr.... why not use the ~$1.3B in annual O&M costs to build ~1GW more wind every year.... After ~2-3 years the annual energy produced by that wind will exceed Diablo Canyon AND you're saving money. Win-Win.