You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LooL, look how fast solar companies are pulling out of Nevada once the net metering subsidy is gone. Solar standing on their own, yea right...
Digging a hole is always going to be cheaper and safer than launching a rocket. Can you imagine the consequences of a nuclear waste laden rocket experiencing a RUD before reaching orbit? Waste is not a problem. There are plenty of geologically stable parts of the US where nuclear waste can be safely buried and it's impossible for it to reach ground water in the next 50M years... which by that time it would have decayed into non-radioactive isotopes.
Nuclear Power has 99 problems but waste ain't one of 'em.
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.
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?
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.
So how is $72/MWh solar+storage is cheaper than $35/MWh nuclear?
I recall seeing a chart somewhere with price spread of existing US nuke fleet. About 60% were around $35/MWh total delivered electricity.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.
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.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.
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...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.
That is if you ignore South Korea building nukes in Saudi Arabia for $4/W. China may be even cheaper that that right now.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?
In all seriousness... please spell out how you see nuclear power displacing more fossil fuel generation... 'cause I don't see it happening. Meanwhile...
$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.I'll ask again... at what price point does Solar make sense to you? $1/w? $0.50/w?
More important than where solar is now is the direction in which it's heading...
Are you from the future or this is just a glitch in the matrix?
Don't expect to run the entire US on solar.
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
I recall seeing a chart somewhere with price spread of existing US nuke fleet. About 60% were around $35/MWh total delivered electricity.
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.
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.
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 )I would define 'THERMAL' power as what's doomed. If it has to use heat as an intermediate step it's not worth investing in... that includes fusion. Solar and Wind PLUS storage are cheaper than turning heat into electricity... even if the heat source is free.
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.
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.