Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

Claims Electric Vehicles as an advantage of US nuclear power.

Doesn't know their stock image is from Europe.

#Nuclearisascam

Petty mistake or obvious Greenwashing... you decide

 

[nwdiver]

Duke has a point...

Government only screws stuff up, and when government gets involved its only really to benefit other parties. Organic vegetables for instance..... Pretty simple concept, but it wasn't until big growers got involved where they made it far too expensive for the little guy to get into.

More than likely Petrol companies got involved in nuclear and brought fear and other things into the mix to create red tape, and completely made nuclear unfeasible, and we see this from other countries.

Nuclear is actually VERY VERY clean, and releases very little pollutants into the environment... If we would have invested in nuclear right now, we would have GREATLY reduced green house gases, AND made power VERY VERY affordable for the individual. Fact of the matter is big power companies dont want this... See large corporations just like to dance around issues. "Well if we only got more cash we could do it.". But big companies love consumables, because consumables are very profitable. They can make profit on the consumable, they can make profit on the transmission, and they can make profit on the power produced.

Nuclear if done right allows for a LARGE amount of generation in a VERY VERY small foot print. Sorry, but solar, wind and hydro cannot compete sqft for sqft.

Renewable is cool, but the amount of time, and the amount of strides we have to make, really make renewable energy out of touch for most people. Renewable right now is a rich persons game. I just installed a 10.88kw system on my house, and I spent close to 40k for everything. Thats a pretty expensive price point for most people.

Power companies, government, etc etc don't care for you and I. Simply put. We put so much power into government hands, and so much faith into them, when we simply shouldn't. Remember our government couldn't even operate a whore house.... (Bunny Ranch). Yet for some reason we expect them to run our lives, tell us how to get energy, create plans on how we can get to a common goal. However, those gas companies, those coal companies, those .... only care about 1 thing... That profit.

You stamp out the competition to boast your products. This debate sort of reminds me of the Tesla/Edison debate. "AC is better, NO DC IS BETTER". Crap in our everyday lives we use both AC and DC now don't we. Both have benefits.

Nuclear has GREAT benefits, and solar has great benefits. We cannot simply rely on one form of technology, we've got to rely on more than one, and we shouldn't discount nuclear because some asshole decided to discredit it, and make everybody believe that its, "dirty, unclean power".

It is VERY clean, and VERY safe, and if we got the same people who couldn't even run a whore house out of it, we can bring those prices down even more.

Whats funny, is a majority of what you pay for to be seen at the doctor is mainly administration costs. It's not really the 10 cent cotton balls, or the 5 dollar bag of saline. It's all of the padding they have to include to facilitate Mr. gubberment. Again, same people who couldn't even run a VERY profitable whore house.

Again, when government gets involved, they can kill any market, and it doesn't even have to be for the right reasons... Maybe their buddy buddy, decided to donate to their campaign, so now they have to push the agenda.

Battery storage is also a pretty big joke... IMO mining for lithium is far dirtier, and worse for the environment than nuclear. That's the point isn't it? We need power at night, as well as the day. PV helps during the day, but man the other night I was looking at my system stats, and I was only generating about 40w of power. Do we rely on natural gas turbines, or petrol powered turbines, or wind, or hydro? I mean jeez, even Hydro has its whoas. It's EXTREMELY dirty for the first 30 years of its power generation.

Nuclear is clean, its ready right now, and it can be done VERY cheaply compared to PV/battery backups/wind/hydro, and the best part is, it can supply power for EVERYBODY here in the United States in a faction of the foot print of all of those combined.

Just sayin' ... bro.

WOW... A LOT wrong there....

Duke has a point...

Government only screws stuff up, and when government gets involved its only really to benefit other parties.

The NRC very likely saved the nuclear industry. I've worked with the NRC and I've been observed by regulators. The NRC largely allows lisencees to determine their own surveillances. The NRC just ensures that companies are doing what they say they're doing. Regulation IS NOT the problem. If anything it's under-regulated... just ask Japan.

More than likely Petrol companies got involved in nuclear and brought fear and other things into the mix to create red tape, and completely made nuclear unfeasible, and we see this from other countries.

Um.... no.... oil has never been a significant source of electricity generation...

Nuclear if done right allows for a LARGE amount of generation in a VERY VERY small foot print. Sorry, but solar, wind and hydro cannot compete sqft for sqft.

Irrelevant. Surface area is not lacking for solar or wind. We can generate 100% of the electricity the US needs ~4000TWh/yr from an area the size of Connecticut. $$$ IS however a VERY LARGE issue...

Renewable is cool, but the amount of time, and the amount of strides we have to make, really make renewable energy out of touch for most people. Renewable right now is a rich persons game. I just installed a 10.88kw system on my house, and I spent close to 40k for everything. Thats a pretty expensive price point for most people.

Your system was a bit high at $4... I can install a system for ~$3/w many installers are now $2.50/w and utility scale is $1/w... explain how nuclear at $15/w is any better. Even adjusting for capacity factor nuclear is STILL absurdly expensive at $16.7/w vs $15/w for rooftop or $5/w for utility scale. Wind is even cheaper; Nuclear is really REALLY expensive.

Battery storage is also a pretty big joke... IMO mining for lithium is far dirtier, and worse for the environment than nuclear. That's the point isn't it? We need power at night, as well as the day. PV helps during the day, but man the other night I was looking at my system stats, and I was only generating about 40w of power. Do we rely on natural gas turbines, or petrol powered turbines, or wind, or hydro? I mean jeez, even Hydro has its whoas. It's EXTREMELY dirty for the first 30 years of its power generation.

Nuclear is clean, its ready right now, and it can be done VERY cheaply compared to PV/battery backups/wind/hydro, and the best part is, it can supply power for EVERYBODY here in the United States in a faction of the foot print of all of those combined.

Just sayin' ... bro.

Lots of ways to store energy... and as I've mentioned numerous times you can add A LOT of solar and wind with ZERO storage. CAISO had ~35GW of demand today. Modern grids can balance ~70% wind/solar so you can have >20GW of wind and >20GW of solar with minimal curtailment since solar peaks at noon and wind typically peaks early in the morning.

Sensing a common theme here... this isn't about clean energy or climate change or even nuclear. This is about regulation... sorry... regulation has it's place. Just ask Japan.

 

[Brando]

WOW... A LOT wrong there....
The NRC very likely saved the nuclear industry. I've worked with the NRC and I've been observed by regulators. The NRC largely allows lisencees to determine their own surveillances. The NRC just ensures that companies are doing what they say they're doing. Regulation IS NOT the problem. If anything it's under-regulated... just ask Japan.

Your system was a bit high at $4... I can install a system for ~$3/w many installers are now $2.50/w and utility scale is $1/w... explain how nuclear at $15/w is any better. Even adjusting for capacity factor nuclear is STILL absurdly expensive at $16.7/w vs $15/w for rooftop or $5/w for utility scale. Wind is even cheaper; Nuclear is really REALLY expensive.

Lots of ways to store energy... and as I've mentioned numerous times you can add A LOT of solar and wind with ZERO storage. CAISO had ~35GW of demand today. Modern grids can balance ~70% wind/solar so you can have >20GW of wind and >20GW of solar with minimal curtailment since solar peaks at noon and wind typically peaks early in the morning.

Sensing a common theme here... this isn't about clean energy or climate change or even nuclear. This is about regulation... sorry... regulation has it's place. Just ask Japan.

Nukes are clean if you just wait long enough. What? 400 to 24,000 years or so??

 

[nwdiver]

Nukes are clean if you just wait long enough. What? 400 to 24,000 years or so??

I really don't have an issue with the waste. Only ~2-3kg of a 20ton spent core is actually 'waste'. I think the waste issue is solvable... I don't think the cost issue is.

 

[Brando]

I really don't have an issue with the waste. Only ~2-3kg of a 20ton spent core is actually 'waste'. I think the waste issue is solvable... I don't think the cost issue is.

Storage may well costs much more than you might imagine. two great documentaries - think you'd really find interesting

a little more historical view of storage

PLEASE reply your impressions/feelings/thoughts after watching - thank you.

 

[RubberToe]

JEA taking legal action against MEAG prior to 9-24 deadline for Vogtle vote:

Lawsuits Raise Stakes on Vogtle Nuclear Expansion Vote

Encourage your children to pursue law degrees, the legal expenses for this plant will get to 9 figures over the next 20 years if the project ends up getting cancelled.

RT

 

[nwdiver]

JEA taking legal action against MEAG prior to 9-24 deadline for Vogtle vote:

Lawsuits Raise Stakes on Vogtle Nuclear Expansion Vote

Encourage your children to pursue law degrees, the legal expenses for this plant will get to 9 figures over the next 20 years if the project ends up getting cancelled.

RT

You know something is an INCREDIBLE rip-off... when it's half-paid for and STILL a better 'investment' to walk away than to finish it...

 

[Brando]

side note: changes in Li-Ion battery production

Lithium Mining and Environmental Impact - Lithium Mining - The Worldwide Website

Electric Vehicle Battery: Materials, Cost, Lifespan

Lilac Solutions Aims to Get Battery Costs Below $80 per Kilowatt-Hour

 

[mspohr]

Duke Energy Brunswick plant may (or may not) be ready for the hurricane and flood
A Nuclear Plant Braces for Impact With Hurricane Florence

 

[Brando]

Duke Energy Brunswick plant may (or may not) be ready for the hurricane and flood
A Nuclear Plant Braces for Impact With Hurricane Florence

... " if we have certainty that the winds onsite will reach 73 miles per hour, then we’ll begin an orderly shutdown of the units,” said Karen Williams, a spokeswoman for Duke Energy ..."

Worried about the wind speed ?? It is the flooding they should worry about. Of course it could be the reporter that was clueless. In most hurricanes it is the WATER that is the biggest danger and to a lesser extent the wind.

 

[nwdiver]

Why nuclear is dead in one headline;

Xcel Resource Planning Executive: We Can Buy New Renewables Cheaper Than Existing Fossil Fuels

Investing in wind or solar actually saves money even over existing plants... nuclear is just a money pit... sometimes even with existing plants. ALWAYS with new plants.

'In many areas, the incremental cost of renewable generation is currently less than the embedded cost of existing generation. That is a very important part of this transition. If we can buy a new resource at a lower cost than the existing resource, that is going to advance the transition.' - Jonathan Adelman
​

Compared to;

Canceling the controversial Plant Vogtle nuclear expansion project could save JEA between $345 million and $727 million, according to a previously confidential analysis prepared last year for utility lawyers, one of the most detailed financial estimates exploring how deeply tied Jacksonville ratepayers are to the floundering construction effort.
​

Invest in nuclear and your rates go UP; Invest in wind or solar your rates go DOWN.

 

[mspohr]

Why nuclear is dead in one headline;

Xcel Resource Planning Executive: We Can Buy New Renewables Cheaper Than Existing Fossil Fuels

Investing in wind or solar actually saves money even over existing plants... nuclear is just a money pit... sometimes even with existing plants. ALWAYS with new plants.

'In many areas, the incremental cost of renewable generation is currently less than the embedded cost of existing generation. That is a very important part of this transition. If we can buy a new resource at a lower cost than the existing resource, that is going to advance the transition.' - Jonathan Adelman
​

Compared to;

Canceling the controversial Plant Vogtle nuclear expansion project could save JEA between $345 million and $727 million, according to a previously confidential analysis prepared last year for utility lawyers, one of the most detailed financial estimates exploring how deeply tied Jacksonville ratepayers are to the floundering construction effort.
​

Invest in nuclear and your rates go UP; Invest in wind or solar your rates go DOWN.

The problem is that utilities are going to have a lot of stranded assets. Not just white elephant nuclear plants but also coal and NG plants. Their entire financial structure for the next 50 years is based on these obsolete assets continuing to be productive (i.e. they can charge customers for the cost of the plants). They have still not faced up to this fact and will resist switching to renewables even if they are cheaper for consumers. What matters to them is whether or not they can continue to charge customers for these obsolete, inefficient, polluting plants.

 

[nwdiver]

The problem is that utilities are going to have a lot of stranded assets. Not just white elephant nuclear plants but also coal and NG plants. Their entire financial structure for the next 50 years is based on these obsolete assets continuing to be productive (i.e. they can charge customers for the cost of the plants). They have still not faced up to this fact and will resist switching to renewables even if they are cheaper for consumers. What matters to them is whether or not they can continue to charge customers for these obsolete, inefficient, polluting plants.

It depends; In NM for example SPS (a Xcel subsidiary) is building ~1GW of wind because it will save ~$1.3B over 20 years. They're building it purely for the energy / fuel savings. A major sticking point in the most recent rate case was Xcels surplus capacity (aka 'stranded assets') They have ~20% more than they need even beyond the 12% buffer they need for reliability. The NM PRC is allowing them to take credit for some of the surplus capacity in their rate base so they're not completely losing out. An unintended and probably unfavorable outcome of the 1GW of wind is that a certain amount will be accredited by SPP as capacity which will make SPSs surplus capacity issue worse.

The truly warped aspect of investor-owned utilities is that their investors expect growth. For now investments in renewables are allowing them to 'grow' their rate base while still saving money overall but demand is shrinking because of increased efficiency and distributed generation. So in reality they're treading water from a growth perspective by replacing fossil fuels with renewables.

There are a lot of ways to mitigate the financial effect of stranded assets. SPS is accelerating the depreciation for the Tolk generating station in Texas due to depletion of the local aquifer that provides cooling water. The retirement of this coal plant has be moved from 2040 to 2030. This is used as justification to increase their rate base. Other stranded assets may be treated in a similar way moving forward.

Fun Fact: URENCO sued to keep Tolk open AND sued to stop the 1GW wind farm; #Nuclearisascam

 

[mspohr]

It depends; In NM for example SPS (a Xcel subsidiary) is building ~1GW of wind because it will save ~$1.3B over 20 years. They're building it purely for the energy / fuel savings. A major sticking point in the most recent rate case was Xcels surplus capacity (aka 'stranded assets') They have ~20% more than they need even beyond the 12% buffer they need for reliability. The NM PRC is allowing them to take credit for some of the surplus capacity in their rate base so they're not completely losing out. An unintended and probably unfavorable outcome of the 1GW of wind is that a certain amount will be accredited by SPP as capacity which will make SPSs surplus capacity issue worse.

The truly warped aspect of investor-owned utilities is that their investors expect growth. For now investments in renewables are allowing them to 'grow' their rate base while still saving money overall but demand is shrinking because of increased efficiency and distributed generation. So in reality they're treading water from a growth perspective by replacing fossil fuels with renewables.

There are a lot of ways to mitigate the financial effect of stranded assets. SPS is accelerating the depreciation for the Tolk generating station in Texas due to depletion of the local aquifer that provides cooling water. The retirement of this coal plant has be moved from 2040 to 2030. This is used as justification to increase their rate base. Other stranded assets may be treated in a similar way moving forward.

Fun Fact: URENCO sued to keep Tolk open AND sued to stop the 1GW wind farm; #Nuclearisascam

Accelerating depreciation is a good way to get the assets off the books. It does, however, shift costs to current customers.
Is it ever possible that utilities will be held accountable (i.e. reduced profit) for the bad decisions they have made? I haven't seen any instances of a utility having to actually pay for even major screw ups.

 

[nwdiver]

Accelerating depreciation is a good way to get the assets off the books. It does, however, shift costs to current customers.
Is it ever possible that utilities will be held accountable (i.e. reduced profit) for the bad decisions they have made? I haven't seen any instances of a utility having to actually pay for even major screw ups.

No; Ratepayers always share the pain

 

[RubberToe]

Oyster Creek being retired on Monday...

America’s oldest operating nuclear power plant to retire on Monday - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

 

[mspohr]

Oyster Creek being retired on Monday...

America’s oldest operating nuclear power plant to retire on Monday - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Oyster Creek is one of four nuclear power plants—along with Palisades Power Plant, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, and Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station—that have planned retirement dates more than a decade before their operating licenses expire. Economic factors have played a significant role in decisions to continue operating or to retire nuclear power plants, as increased competition from natural gas and renewables has made it increasingly difficult for nuclear generators to compete in electricity markets.

From "too cheap to meter" to "too expensive to matter".

 

[SageBrush]

The truly warped aspect of investor-owned utilities is that their investors expect growth.

That is OK; the warped part if that the investors think I should have some obligation towards them.

 

[mspohr]

... " if we have certainty that the winds onsite will reach 73 miles per hour, then we’ll begin an orderly shutdown of the units,” said Karen Williams, a spokeswoman for Duke Energy ..."

Worried about the wind speed ?? It is the flooding they should worry about. Of course it could be the reporter that was clueless. In most hurricanes it is the WATER that is the biggest danger and to a lesser extent the wind.

Looks like flooding is going to be a problem:

Nearly 300 Duke workers and NRC personnel, however, have been stranded at the plant for days due to flooding, some as far back as Wednesday. Some workers have been able to leave to check on their homes and families. But Ledford noted that roadway blockages linked to flooding would now make it impossible to evacuate the plant’s 10-mile evacuation zone if the threat level were to increase.

Floods limit access to Duke’s Brunswick nuclear plant; crews use porta-potties, cots

 

[mspohr]

The Jolt: ‘Election’ campaign erupts ahead of Plant Vogtle nuke votes

Looks like the cost of this grossly expensive mismanaged project has become an election issue.