-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Nuclear power
- Thread starter eledille
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
That was largely symbolic and mostly effecting the lease model... solar is still cost effective in Nevada. Solar is still being installed in Nevada. A former co-worker recently installed a system there... it will pay for itself long before Vogtle or Summer...
Residential solar will likely hit $2/w with no subsidies by 2020... a friend is now working on a DIY 22kW project for $0.80/w...
How cost effective is Solar in Nevada? Enough that casinos are paying >$80M to divorce themselves the tyranny of NV Power to use solar.
At what cost point will you admit that solar is the answer? If nuclear can get below ~$2/w it will have my support.
Last edited:
That's true. Beyond that "nuclear waste" is mostly an artifact of the current generation of nuclear reactors that were designs optimized to use in submarines and to make bombs. The waste is fuel for 4th and later generation reactor designs. It's the biggest objection most people bring up and it's a non-issue.
It occupies tiny volumes compared with ash waste from coal plants.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yep... as much crap as I take for being 'anti-nuclear'... I'm not... I'm just pragmatic. Waste is simply not a big issue. Nuclear power could generate ZERO waste and it would still fail for the simple reason that $7B is way too much money for spend on a 1GW plant... Fission is an insanely expensive way to heat water. The chemistry controls to maintain the steam plant are too expensive. It's silly to keep investing in Thermal power plants.
AntronX
Member
Dude, solar is already 10GW at the peak in CA (2GW is customer side). Average peak CA demand is ~30GW. At 10GW installed, solar averages 2GW continuous if averaged over 24 hour period. CA average year round demand is ~25GW. Therefor solar produced 2/25 = 8% of average annual CA elec. demand. So if you can magically order (you can't) all power plant to shut down at peak solar generation, you can only triple present solar amount in CA before you run into a brick wall. That's only 24% of annual generation. Where are you getting remaining 76% from on average? Are you going to shut down wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro to make room for peak solar? Why do you support shutting down 2GW continuous nuke plant to make room for 0.4GW of continuous equivalent of solar energy, then be forced to make up 1.6GW with gas?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
More important than where solar is now is the direction in which it's heading...
Diablo canyon isn't slated to be shutdown until 2024. At the rate Solar is growing it will likely be capable of carrying the grid some days. You need dynamic load following plants to match wind and solar until storage is ready. Diablo Canyon is not a dynamic load following plant.
Why build more $7/w nuclear plants when wind and solar are ~$1/w and storage will soon be <$200/kWh? How does nuclear survive when there are days with little to no demand for power? Demand Response and Storage are the long-term solution to fill in the gaps with intermittent sources like wind and solar.
AntronX
Member
Solar will never carry the grid without storage or gas backup. At night in CA there will be 20GW demand and no solar. At $200/kWh storage cost at 5000 cycles per battery lifetime, storage will cost $50/MWh stored. Nukes cost $35/MWh for both generation and "storage". Solar at $1W will cost 22/MWh over 25 years in the desert climate. So how is $72/MWh solar+storage is cheaper than $35/MWh nuclear?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Well...
1) $35/MWh is only O&M... are we not going to replace more fossil fuel plants with clean energy? What about capital expenses for new plants? That's currently ~$50/MWh and rising for nuclear.
2) Not all the energy produced is stored... you don't just add them. Energy consumed at the time of production would be ~$22/MWh... not $72. Demand Response would maximize energy purchased at that lower rate. AND... $50/MWh for peaking power (which nuclear plants need too) is a bargain. Storage at scale would pay for itself quickly.
Then there's the savings on transmission. At the rate solar costs are falling we might hit 'god parity' by ~2025. That's where it's cheaper to generate electricity at your home than it is to transmit power to your home. Even if a nuclear power plant gave electricity away for free it wouldn't be cost effective.
Solar is making progress. Cheaper cells and cheaper batteries... Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive... what's the path forward for nuclear as more and more people generate their own power? Outlaw distributed generation? I'll ask again... at what price point does Solar make sense to you? $1/w? $0.50/w?
In all seriousness... please spell out how you see nuclear power displacing more fossil fuel generation... 'cause I don't see it happening. Meanwhile...
Last edited:
AntronX
Member
I recall seeing a chart somewhere with price spread of existing US nuke fleet. About 60% were around $35/MWh total delivered electricity.
No one is going to bother with more than 10% of DR, it's just too inconvenient for people. I want my AC when I want to. 24% will be direct consumption at $22/MWH, remaining 76% will be 22+50MWh because solar does not work at night (you keep forgetting that). Keep in mind that $22/MWh figure is for solar located in desert with 20% capacity factor. Germany will pay double that cost due to their poor 10% CF. Don't assume the whole world is West US.
I see you also watched Tony Seba's talk. I found him too fast and loose with the facts, typical for finance guy trying to bullshit other finance guys...
That is if you ignore South Korea building nukes in Saudi Arabia for $4/W. China may be even cheaper that that right now.
AntronX
Member
In all seriousness... please spell out how you see nuclear power displacing more fossil fuel generation... 'cause I don't see it happening. Meanwhile...
That one nuke plant in April equivalent to ~5GW of solar or half of all solar installed in that chart. Also, I am pretty sure November and December 2016 have not happened yet... Are you from the future or this is just a glitch in the matrix?
AntronX
Member
$1/W is good. But it will at most supply ~20% of world energy demand without planetary scale storage, which would make it more expensive that nuke on large nation state level. In poor sunny countries $1/W solar will be huge. Don't expect to run the entire US on solar.
AntronX
Member
More important than where solar is now is the direction in which it's heading...
I am actually little glad that the duck curve got here so fast. I think in few more years solar in California will run into some serious technical roadblocks, and your dream of 100% solar powered future will be shattered
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Check the title of the graph... 'scheduled'
Of course not. Wind will play a large part as well as gas peakers until storage gets deployed sufficiently.
I think in few more years solar in California will run into some serious technical roadblocks, and your dream of 100% solar powered future will be shattered
Really? We can land a 200' rocket on a barge in the ocean but you don't think we can balance the grid? That's the unsolvable problem? No... we've been preparing for this for years... when the grid needs it the solution is ready. I'm already installing inverters ready for this.
Yes... O&M... capital costs are ~$7/w or ~$50/MWh with a capacity factor of 90%.... and that's one main point that makes me pessimistic about the future viability of nuclear. As solar and storage gets cheaper more and more people will generate their own power. The CF of all central generating plants will sag. You might need generation in the winter months but you can't cost effectively operate a nuclear plant for part of the year. What's the path forward for nuclear? Outlaw distributed generation? How do you maintain sufficient demand? Solar isn't going to magically stop at 20%... even if they don't let you export utilities will be hard pressed to prevent you from self-consuming. $200/kWh ($0.05/kWh) is ~2 years away. Where do you think storage will be when DCPP is scheduled to close in 2025. Brave new world... just not sure where nuclear fits in.
Last edited:
AntronX
Member
Dude... Once again. California is not the whole planet Earth. What will Russia do with solar with their month long sunless winters? What will Alaska? What about China? Nukes will be part of the mix for a loong time (possibly forever) even if solar in the desert is cheaper in every way. How to you power Alaska with solar from the desert? HVDC? Too much loss and expensive. Superconductors? Science fiction (Ok, not. But very expensive). How do you suppose we deal with NIMBYs when it comes to power lines across their lands? Look how much resistance is being put up against those measly 4GW HVDC lines proposed to carry wind power to load centers in the East US. Factor those costs into your dreams as well. There would be no need for HVDC if nukes were built close to load centers. No need for battery storage with nukes since they can ramp just fine (France does it). They don't ramp in US because they are not allowed to and gas does it cheaper anyways since we have no carbon tax.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I've said before that nuclear might find niche applications in the far northern and southern latitudes. But you run into a catch-22. Areas that could use nuclear due to how remote they are... probably can't afford it. Does Alaska have nuclear now? No, it's too expensive. HVDC would be cost effective for population centers.
Not referring to the technical challenges but the economic ones. A nuclear plant that operates with a 80% CF is ~10% more expensive than one operating with a 90% CF. It's cost prohibitive to operate a nuclear plant for load following. The average CF for a peaker in the US is ~15%. You can't build a $7/w plant and operate it 15% of the time. The US needs ~1TW of generating capacity but only generates 4000TWh/yr. That's an average CF of <50%. Try to replace all that with nuclear and your O&M costs go from $35/MWh to ~$60/MWh. A nuclear plant costs about the same annually wether its generating 1GWh or 1TWh. If France ramps their nukes that would help explain why EDF is going bankrupt...
This is the advantage of low capital plants like solar, wind and gas. They can afford to operate at a lower capacity factor. Nuclear can't.
Zapped
Model S - PURE EV
I might have missed a subsequent post but to clarify I hope you're not suggesting that the Solar Thermal and Geo Thermal are doomed. ( List of solar thermal power stations - Wikipedia, Geothermal power - Wikipedia )
They seem to like Solar Thermal in SPAIN and the recently complete Ivanpah plant in Nevada received some awards.
Last edited:
Not referencing the content, but the visualization here is horrible. This is http://reddit.com/r/dataisugly material and reminds me of this gem:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yes... ALL thermal plants (with the exception of perhaps Iceland due to poor solar but abundant geothermal).
Ivanpah was an economic disaster... it's very unlikely we'll see another solar thermal plant built.
My premise here is the miracle of mass production. A solar panel is now cheaper than a window. Largely due to the fact that the world is simply making far more solar panels than windows. It's a virtuous cycle. The more solar we buy the more solar is manufactured. The more solar is manufactured the cheaper solar gets. The cheaper solar gets the more we buy. Steam plants aren't nearly as easy to mass produce.
The 3 most common elements in Earths crust are Oxygen, Silicon and Aluminum. The two most critical elements in a Si Solar panel are Silicon and Aluminum... it's like it was meant to be.
Similar threads
