Nuclear power

[macpacheco]

Yes, Germany hit 59% on one particular day this past summer, but they've been hitting high numbers above 40% for at least three years now so let's not pretend this a "one day" kind of thing. When the feed-in tariff started in Germany, traditional utilities were barking that the grid could only handle maybe 5-10% intermittent solar without exploding and that clearly hasn't happened. As for the details of how the grid managers have pulled this off.....who cares? The fact that they ARE pulling it off without any major problems is what counts.

The calculation should be solar+wind GWh vs total consumption for that 24 hour period, not 59% of sustained consumption for a few hours (right when the sun is at it's best moment). If you do the fair math, I believe it will be less than 20% ! But I call your attention that this was accomplished not by reducing CO2 emissions, but by raising them, because load following fossil plants are FAR less efficient than base load fossil plants.
The goal shouldn't be lots of Solar PV + Wind, it should be drastic reduction in emissions.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Just to put a fact on the table: a modern gas-fired CCGT costs about $1.10/W to install, so solar is still almost double the capital cost. The CCGT can operate around-the-clock, while solar operates when it can. Yes, the CCGT has fuel costs, which does close the gap some, but solar us still not as cost-effective as natural gas on a kWh levelized cost of energy basis. By a lot. (As long as you don't price carbon.)

However... Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the renewable energy technology we have today is as good as it gets. Combined-cycle gas turbines are an extremely mature technology, the result of a century of turbine refinements. There are big technological gains to be realized yet, however, on the renewables side.

Nuclear is also learning new tricks. Like others here, I think many regions will greatly benefit from adding new-tech nuclear to complement local renewables.

 

[nwdiver]

Just to put a fact on the table: a modern gas-fired CCGT costs about $1.10/W to install, so solar is still almost double the capital cost. The CCGT can operate around-the-clock, while solar operates when it can. Yes, the CCGT has fuel costs, which does close the gap some, but solar us still not as cost-effective as natural gas on a kWh levelized cost of energy basis. By a lot. (As long as you don't price carbon.)

However... Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the renewable energy technology we have today is as good as it gets. Combined-cycle gas turbines are an extremely mature technology, the result of a century of turbine refinements. There are big technological gains to be realized yet, however, on the renewables side.

Nuclear is also learning new tricks. Like others here, I think many regions will greatly benefit from adding new-tech nuclear to complement local renewables.

The levelized cost of a gas-fired CCGT is $0.067/kWh. That does not include transmission costs which average ~0.02/kWh. That means the lowest cost a new CCGT plant can deliver power to your home is ~$0.087/kWh. Compare that to the 10kW solar array my friend just installed. Upfront cost was ~$18k. It went on-line for the first time last week and produced 74kWh on day 1. Over the next 20 years its expected production is 400000kWh. It will very likely continue to produce >80% of it's capacity for 40 more years. Even assuming it fails at 20 years and 1 day the cost per kWh will be $18k/400MWh = $0.045/kWh. That's not including the 30% FTC which lowers the cost to ~$13k or $0.032/kWh. AND the balance of system cost for solar PV is expected to fall another ~50% by 2020... AND the cost of storage will likely fall to ~$0.02/kWh thanks in no small part to Tesla.

Maybe Nuclear will learn a few tricks that allows new plants to sell power for <$0.02/kWh so they can compete with solar and still make a profit... I'm not holding my breath.

Cost of this 10kW array was $18k ($13k after 30% FTC)
It will produce >400000kWh over 20 years
$18k / 400000kWh = $0.045/kWh

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
http://www.us.schott.com/photovolta...ute-long-term-study-schott-solar-26-years.pdf

Centralized power generation is living on borrowed time...

 

[macpacheco]

The levelized cost of a gas-fired CCGT is $0.067/kWh. That does not include transmission costs which average ~0.02/kWh. That means the lowest cost a new CCGT plant can deliver power to your home is ~$0.087/kWh. Compare that to the 10kW solar array my friend just installed. Upfront cost was ~$18k. It went on-line for the first time last week and produced 74kWh on day 1. Over the next 20 years its expected production is 400000kWh. It will very likely continue to produce >80% of it's capacity for 40 more years. Even assuming it fails at 20 years and 1 day the cost per kWh will be $18k/400MWh = $0.045/kWh. That's not including the 30% FTC which lowers the cost to ~$13k or $0.032/kWh. AND the balance of system cost for solar PV is expected to fall another ~50% by 2020... AND the cost of storage will likely fall to ~$0.02/kWh thanks in no small part to Tesla.

Maybe Nuclear will learn a few tricks that allows new plants to sell power for <$0.02/kWh so they can compete with solar and still make a profit... I'm not holding my breath.
View attachment 44863
Cost of this 10kW array was $18k ($13k after 30% FTC)
It will produce >400000kWh over 20 years
$18k / 400000kWh = $0.045/kWh

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
http://www.us.schott.com/photovolta...ute-long-term-study-schott-solar-26-years.pdf

Centralized power generation is living on borrowed time...

Yeah, once again we're comparing oranges to bananas.
That Solar PV needs a load following component on the grid or expensive batteries on your site.
You must account for the whole cost. Or make the fair comparison, install enough solar PV so you can live from solar alone year round, over producing in the summer, and storing in the day your excess power for the night. Then your $18k array becomes about a $50k energy storage system, with no additional generation capacity.
The more Solar PV there is on the grid, the more expensive the load following is per GWh produced (cause it's operating at a lower average load factor).
Plus you should compare solar without the huge incentives.

Nuclear upfront costs are high, but we're seeing old reactors certified to operate for 60 yrs with the NRC hinting they could extend some to 80yrs.
Those are the oldest reactors in operation. The least safe ones. The ones that really weren't designed to operate for 80yrs ultimately.
If you change your math accounting for newly installed reactors living for 80 yrs, then even current, expensive light water reactor nuclear fission will beat everything else out of the water.
The reality is if the government traded every nuclear subsidy out there for a 40 year loan at 3% yearly interest, nuclear will beat everything out of the water.

Every solar PV panel that gets installed makes it harder to get rid of fossil fuels, cause nuclear technical requires operating at a minimum 30% capacity and is uneconomical to operate at less than 70% load capacity because it's expensive to install and cheap to operate once installed.
BTW, I'm not defending allowing Gen II (exactly the only reactors that are old enough to get to the 40 yr old mark) to 60 or 80 yrs.
Most Gen II reactors should be replaced. But the NRC regulatory framework makes it far cheaper to extend reactor life than install a new one. Plus extending an existing reactor life doesn't attract quite as much strong opposition as installing a new one.
But I'm quite sure 90% of reactors that are Gen III tech will service for 80 yrs easily. 40 yrs is just a regulatory barrier that requires the operator to show he's operated that particular reactor wisely and made no serious safety mistakes.

The problem with your mindset is you don't see the real math, because it's hidden behind gigantic subsidies.
We should get rid of each and every subsidy, tax break, everything, and add a carbon tax on fossil fuels.
If we do that, out of a sudden, nuclear is wildly competitive, blowing solar and wind out of the water.

And there are many proposed solutions that would just about half the upfront costs of Light Water Solid fuel Uranium nukes.
The problem is the tiny minority of fierce anti nuclear polluting the majority with your incomplete math makes nuclear look but, but it isn't.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

The calculation should be solar+wind GWh vs total consumption for that 24 hour period, not 59% of sustained consumption for a few hours (right when the sun is at it's best moment). If you do the fair math, I believe it will be less than 20% ! But I call your attention that this was accomplished not by reducing CO2 emissions, but by raising them, because load following fossil plants are FAR less efficient than base load fossil plants.
The goal shouldn't be lots of Solar PV + Wind, it should be drastic reduction in emissions.

Solar+wind accounted for 60% of the total consumption for the entire day from what I understand. But they've had plenty of days where solar was covering more than 40% of the peak demand, I believe the record is still 23.9GW. That's just as much of a grid test IMO, especially since the powers that be said the grid would never handle more than 10%.

Yeah, the current state in Germany is wildly inefficient CO2-wise, but it's the disruption to the legacy system that is causing it. These guys are running their coal plants at full blast and exporting their juice because a cold coal plant is a broke coal plant. I don't blame them or demonize them for this, it's a natural byproduct of the transition. I was reading the oither day that Germany is attempting to break down all the existing barriers to other grids so they can more easily shovel juice to other countries. Imagine the killing they could make off all that peak production when their neighbors have none. Cha-ching! Those Germans sure know how to make the big bucks.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, once again we're comparing oranges to bananas.
That Solar PV needs a load following component on the grid or expensive batteries on your site.
You must account for the whole cost. Or make the fair comparison, install enough solar PV so you can live from solar alone year round, over producing in the summer, and storing in the day your excess power for the night. Then your $18k array becomes about a $50k energy storage system, with no additional generation capacity.
The more Solar PV there is on the grid, the more expensive the load following is per GWh produced (cause it's operating at a lower average load factor).
Plus you should compare solar without the huge incentives.

Nuclear upfront costs are high, but we're seeing old reactors certified to operate for 60 yrs with the NRC hinting they could extend some to 80yrs.
Those are the oldest reactors in operation. The least safe ones. The ones that really weren't designed to operate for 80yrs ultimately.
If you change your math accounting for newly installed reactors living for 80 yrs, then even current, expensive light water reactor nuclear fission will beat everything else out of the water.
The reality is if the government traded every nuclear subsidy out there for a 40 year loan at 3% yearly interest, nuclear will beat everything out of the water.

Every solar PV panel that gets installed makes it harder to get rid of fossil fuels, cause nuclear technical requires operating at a minimum 30% capacity and is uneconomical to operate at less than 70% load capacity because it's expensive to install and cheap to operate once installed.
BTW, I'm not defending allowing Gen II (exactly the only reactors that are old enough to get to the 40 yr old mark) to 60 or 80 yrs.
Most Gen II reactors should be replaced. But the NRC regulatory framework makes it far cheaper to extend reactor life than install a new one. Plus extending an existing reactor life doesn't attract quite as much strong opposition as installing a new one.
But I'm quite sure 90% of reactors that are Gen III tech will service for 80 yrs easily. 40 yrs is just a regulatory barrier that requires the operator to show he's operated that particular reactor wisely and made no serious safety mistakes.

The problem with your mindset is you don't see the real math, because it's hidden behind gigantic subsidies.
We should get rid of each and every subsidy, tax break, everything, and add a carbon tax on fossil fuels.
If we do that, out of a sudden, nuclear is wildly competitive, blowing solar and wind out of the water.

And there are many proposed solutions that would just about half the upfront costs of Light Water Solid fuel Uranium nukes.
The problem is the tiny minority of fierce anti nuclear polluting the majority with your incomplete math makes nuclear look but, but it isn't.

Incomplete math? Only the up-front costs of nuclear are high? I assume your accounting has a line for waste storage and disposal and the tons of people and materials needed to run a plant for 40 years? A good solar array can be put on top of a good roof and left alone for 30 years with no problem.

And where are these gigantic subsidies? AFAIK Germany doesn't even have an up-front subsidy and they're installing at $2/W. You'd be hard pressed to convince me it's wise to spend $6B on one new nuke plant before we have CA and the entire southwest US at 40% solar/wind.

And I thought we were going right from renewables to fusion? Personally, I'm done with centralized energy production and I think a lot of folks on here are of the same mindset. Freedom from the energy/banking cabals is almost as vital as freedom from British tyranny. It's clearly the next step.

 

[nwdiver]

@Macpacheco

It is a direct comparison... unless you think Elon is off by an order of magnitude in his estimates for the "Gigafactory"; Battery costs are going to be driven down to <$200/kWh by 2020. Cycle life will be 10k-20k and calendar life ~15-20 years. Even taking the low end of that projection the cost of storage will be $0.02/kWh. The cost to generate with Solar PV by 2020 will be $0.03-0.06/kWh and that's a 20 year average (NO SUBSIDIES). Even if storage costs are double @ $0.04/kWh solar STILL wins.

I work at a nuclear facility. I operated an A4W power plant for 6 years in the navy. I know how safe nuclear power is. My objection is cost. Yeah, you can operate a nuclear plant for 80 years but you're basically rebuilding it every 20. Just look at SONGS. Nuclear power is simply too expensive.

Add to that the fact that Solar PV is growing from the other end of the meter... XYZ utility isn't going to invest in new generation if supply already meets demand. However, XYZ home/business owner WILL invest in new generation that saves them $$$ every year for 20+ years. Renewables are going to grow wether they're needed or not and they're going to push out existing power generation.

There's a reason Tesla is going to build solar and wind to power their factory and not an AP1000 or SMR..... $$$$$

 

[VolkerP]

There's a reason Tesla is going to build solar and wind to power their factory and not an AP1000 or SMR..... $$$$$

The other reason being that they want to start to run the Gigafactory in 2017: Construction of new nuclear plants can easily reach a decade. Even Olkiluoto will not be ready in 2017 - construction began in 2005, operation NET 2018-2020.

 

[macpacheco]

@Macpacheco
It is a direct comparison... unless you think Elon is off by an order of magnitude in his estimates for the "Gigafactory"; Battery costs are going to be driven down to <$200/kWh by 2020. Cycle life will be 10k-20k and calendar life ~15-20 years. Even taking the low end of that projection the cost of storage will be $0.02/kWh. The cost to generate with Solar PV by 2020 will be $0.03-0.06/kWh and that's a 20 year average (NO SUBSIDIES). Even if storage costs are double @ $0.04/kWh solar STILL wins.

I work at a nuclear facility. I operated an A4W power plant for 6 years in the navy. I know how safe nuclear power is. My objection is cost. Yeah, you can operate a nuclear plant for 80 years but you're basically rebuilding it every 20. Just look at SONGS. Nuclear power is simply too expensive.

Add to that the fact that Solar PV is growing from the other end of the meter... XYZ utility isn't going to invest in new generation if supply already meets demand. However, XYZ home/business owner WILL invest in new generation that saves them $$$ every year for 20+ years. Renewables are going to grow wether they're needed or not and they're going to push out existing power generation.

There's a reason Tesla is going to build solar and wind to power their factory and not an AP1000 or SMR..... $$$$$

Still waiting for a self contained island to show the Germany model works without shoving electricity surplus on their neighbors.
The logic they are making a killing by exporting electricity is a fallacy. They must undercut the competition to export electricity. They don't export because it's profitable, they export otherwise that electricity would overload their grid (or would have to be wasted, like heating a large lake or river with the excess electricity).
What would happen if all of Germany's neighbors did the same as Germany, who would buy the excess ? Again, you're seeing the sides you want to see, and ignoring the inconvenient ones.
Of course Tesla isn't going to build a nuclear reactor for their plant. I don't read anywhere they plan that the factory will be energy self sufficient. Perhaps be self sufficient on a clear summer from 10AM-4PM.
You do know that the NRC won't give nuclear operators a fixed set of rules with guarantees that if they follow all of that their project will be approved, do you ? Do you realize that anything in the lines that part of the NRC job is to help nuclear energy growth is in practice a big lie, that the NRC lack of nuclear certainty regarding installing a new nuke that makes up for most of the cost issues with nukes, do you ? The NRC board has very little nuclear engineers, most of them aren't there to help, they are there to make the industry's job nearly impossible.
China, India, South Korea show nuclear can be economical. If you make the nuclear regulator be logical and predictable, instead of the guy that is never happy until you are unhappy ! People that understand the nuclear world state outright that the Canadian counterpart of the NRC is far more reasonable, and that this doesn't mean Canada nuclear energy is less safe.

 

[nwdiver]

"Our long-term goal is to invent ways to solve storage problems to facilitate a 100 percent renewable grid. That shouldn’t threaten utilities. It’s the logical and future evolution of the grid. Utilities have a key part in this. Our role is to invest and improve the products that make a 100 percent renewable grid possible." - JB Straubel

Tesla’s Power Play | EnergyBiz

Is solar and wind NOW cost-competitive with nuclear as a SOURCE of energy? Yes

Do we currently have enough storage to completely displace Centralized Power Generation with intermittent renewables? No

Is it projected that the cost of storage + the cost of solar & wind will be < nuclear power by 2025? Absolutely

Will a nuclear power plant built today become "stranded capital" in ~15 years? Almost certainly...

 

[Robert.Boston]

There are places on the earth where neither solar nor wind are particularly good solutions. Consider Japan, for example: a densely populated country, mediocre insolation, no room for large-scale wind farms. Ocean-based energy could be an answer (something I'm working on), but there's a big gap unless that comes through.

 

[Jeff Miller]

Is it projected that the cost of storage + the cost of solar & wind will be < nuclear power by 2025? Absolutely

Who projects that?

 

[macpacheco]

"Our long-term goal is to invent ways to solve storage problems to facilitate a 100 percent renewable grid. That shouldn’t threaten utilities. It’s the logical and future evolution of the grid. Utilities have a key part in this. Our role is to invest and improve the products that make a 100 percent renewable grid possible." - JB Straubel

Tesla’s Power Play | EnergyBiz

Is solar and wind NOW cost-competitive with nuclear as a SOURCE of energy? Yes

Do we currently have enough storage to completely displace Centralized Power Generation with intermittent renewables? No

Is it projected that the cost of storage + the cost of solar & wind will be < nuclear power by 2025? Absolutely

Will a nuclear power plant built today become "stranded capital" in ~15 years? Almost certainly...

Not so sure. Do you understand there are regions of the USA grid right now that can't add a single extra wind turbine online, even if that turbine was FREE ? Cost is only one dimension of the problem. Grid stability is another that can't be solved by just making wind turbines and solar panels cheaper. And it flies in the face of those that say "distributed generation will kill the concept of baseload generation". Plus while solar has a ways to get cheaper, wind turbines don't have much cost reduction potential.

Please go find an electrical engineer with real world expertise on transmission systems (aka the core of the grid), ask them what are the problems with all this wind and solar being added to the grid. The answer will be telling.

In reality solar is a lesser problem than wind. Wind is just too unpredictable.

No nuclear power plants won't become stranded capital, ever. Once paid off, they become an excellent cash cow for the owner.
The root of the nuclear problem is this:
Anti nuclear people are much like the pro gun people. Very radical, they vote, they demand, and they punish politicians that don't do their bidding as harshly as possible. This lead to the NRC becoming the "lets make nuclear as impossible as possible, pardon the pun".
Nuclear is being done on a cost competitive basis against coal in China, India, South Korea. What I mean is while a coal power plant can be installed for much less than nuclear, operating and maintaining a nuclear plant is significantly cheaper than coal in the long run. The fundamental factor is they don't have the population and the regulatory agency being against it. So they have far less uncertainty. China is getting a particularly good deal, cause they are building over 200 reactors in the next few decades.
And thorium molten salt nuclear will be radically cheaper to operate, because there's no uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication costs, and one ton of thorium will produce as much electricity as 250 tons of mined uranium on today's plants. If the plants are actually cheaper to install than current nuclear, it will just be a big bonus.
If the world is to start building a thousand thorium LFTR plants, there wouldn't be enough uranium spent fuel in the world to start all of those in a short period.

 

[nwdiver]

In terms of future projections solar is already cost competitive with nuclear on a per kWh basis and Elon is confident he can solve the storage issue with the Giga-Factory.

We've been promised a Nuclear Future for over 30 years. In that time the cost of nuclear has more than tripled while the cost of Solar has declined >90%.

Explain how nuclear power @ $0.08/kWh is any better than Solar + sufficient storage @ $0.06/kWh... except by employing more people aka... more expensive.

 

[NuclearPowered]

What are your sources for the high nuclear costs? That doesn't agree with what I am personally aware of.

The biggest risk nuclear has in the short term is cheap natural gas.

 

[Jeff Miller]

In terms of future projections solar is already cost competitive with nuclear on a per kWh basis and Elon is confident he can solve the storage issue with the Giga-Factory.

We've been promised a Nuclear Future for over 30 years. In that time the cost of nuclear has more than tripled while the cost of Solar has declined >90%.

Explain how nuclear power @ $0.08/kWh is any better than Solar + sufficient storage @ $0.06/kWh... except by employing more people aka... more expensive.

We will see on the storage costs, but Elon not withstanding batteries are likely to remain expensive for some time. I certainly can't envision you average citizen of China let alone Mozambique being able to buy them in sufficient scale to get off of all the coal they are burning now.

The big problem with the cost of renewables (and I am totally in favor of solar and wind, don't get me wrong) that you cite is that they are marginal costs. They are the marginal costs given that all they need to do is supply extra power to the grid whenever the sun happens to be shining or the wind blowing.

But to get to a fossil fuel free energy system, we can't just look at marginal costs. We have to look at total costs. What would the total cost of an all solar+wind energy system be - one that is always on, 24 hours a day? Even for just the part of our energy that we currently get as electricity, this would be huge. You would have to greatly overbuild your maximum capacity to capture as much energy as possible during favorable periods, and you would have to have a massive system of storage, all of which would be extraordinarily expensive. Plus you would probably need a much better grid to shuffle power around the country (or world) as the places where the sun is shining or the wind is blowing change throughout the day.

And that's not the end. We need to get off all fossil fuels if we want to leave our grandkids a habitable planet, and that requires even more massive investments in solar capacity and storage to replace all our oil and natural gas that we use for transport and home heating.

When you tally up the total costs, and not just those on the margin (which assume you have coal and nuclear and gas sitting in the background, always ready to pick up the slack) nuclear looks quite attractive, especially if we could move forward with Gen 3 and 4 systems in scale, and if we could get a rational regulatory system in place.

 

[macpacheco]

What are your sources for the high nuclear costs? That doesn't agree with what I am personally aware of.

The biggest risk nuclear has in the short term is cheap natural gas.

Nuclear is affordable in countries that want affordable nuclear. It's expensive in countries that have a vocal minority (but a powerful one) pressuring government to get rid of nukes.
Brazil's Angra 3 is budgeted at US$ 4 billion / GWh, or about US$ 5 billion total (1350MWe). And it's a one off project, with the only economy of scale being it's a large nuclear site with 2 operating reactors, this will be the 3rd, but each one is a different technology (the oldest reactor started construction 40 years ago, the new one is scheduled to start operation 4 yrs from now). Part of the high costs is this was an old project that was suspended for a decade and restarted in 2010. Even with all of that, the price is far less than prices the anti nuclear folks parade as example of nuclear being insanely expensive.

China is in the process of building dozens of reactors with near term plans to have 200 reactors, they have achieved very affordable costs cause they are standardizing everything (much like France did) instead of buying one reactor today, another reactor 3 years from now, with changes to every subsequent purchase.

North America doesn't want nuclear, so they don't have affordable nuclear. If it wanted affordable nuclear, it would make it happen (if it commits to replace all current coal electricity with nuclear).

The real problem is the illusion that solar and wind will replace natural gas and coal. It will offset a very small fraction, not nearly enough to make a little dent on the problem.
If we could get past of the illusion that we don't need nuclear to solve climate change, then we can have an honest debate about the cost of nuclear.

 

[NuclearPowered]

Nuclear is affordable in countries that want affordable nuclear. It's expensive in countries that have a vocal minority (but a powerful one) pressuring government to get rid of nukes.
Brazil's Angra 3 is budgeted at US$ 4 billion / GWh, or about US$ 5 billion total (1350MWe). And it's a one off project, with the only economy of scale being it's a large nuclear site with 2 operating reactors, this will be the 3rd, but each one is a different technology (the oldest reactor started construction 40 years ago, the new one is scheduled to start operation 4 yrs from now). Part of the high costs is this was an old project that was suspended for a decade and restarted in 2010. Even with all of that, the price is far less than prices the anti nuclear folks parade as example of nuclear being insanely expensive.

China is in the process of building dozens of reactors with near term plans to have 200 reactors, they have achieved very affordable costs cause they are standardizing everything (much like France did) instead of buying one reactor today, another reactor 3 years from now, with changes to every subsequent purchase.

North America doesn't want nuclear, so they don't have affordable nuclear. If it wanted affordable nuclear, it would make it happen (if it commits to replace all current coal electricity with nuclear).

The real problem is the illusion that solar and wind will replace natural gas and coal. It will offset a very small fraction, not nearly enough to make a little dent on the problem.
If we could get past of the illusion that we don't need nuclear to solve climate change, then we can have an honest debate about the cost of nuclear.

I'm not agreeing with the fact that nuclear is too expensive to be competitive. Some of the nuclear generation cost figures per kWh stated in this thread are above what I know them to be in my professional experience. Nuclear plants, at least in the US unregulated electricity markets, are being driven out of buisness by the low costs of natgas and wind.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The real problem is the illusion that solar and wind will replace natural gas and coal. It will offset a very small fraction, not nearly enough to make a little dent on the problem.
If we could get past of the illusion that we don't need nuclear to solve climate change, then we can have an honest debate about the cost of nuclear.

We don't need nuclear. We can do everything with the combination of renewable electricity and methane (which can be generated via biogas or methanation). Nuclear would simply be much more likely to be a cheaper solution. But, then it would also be simple for the USA to embrace energy efficiency.

 

[macpacheco]

We don't need nuclear. We can do everything with the combination of renewable electricity and methane (which can be generated via biogas or methanation). Nuclear would simply be much more likely to be a cheaper solution. But, then it would also be simple for the USA to embrace energy efficiency.

What you mean is you don't want nuclear. The rest of your statement don't support your statement that you don't need nuclear not a single bit.

Biomass is a very good dispatachable electricity source, however you need to do the math and tell me how much methane you can produce from biomass. Not nearly enough to replace all coal and natural gas. Not nearly enough to offset 20% of current USA consumption of coal and natural gas. Unless of course you would like to see corn prices double (or more) to allocate more land for grown biomass. We are trying this experiment in Brazil, once upon a time we had huge production of sugar cane going into ethanol. As the world market for sugar went hot, every year our share of ethanol vs sugar cane is shifting towards sugar, that's because we don't intervene in the market with artificial subsidies, unlike the USA, where without heavy coal ethanol subsidies that industry would crash overnight.

If you at least were honest and said that your first logic is "I reject nuclear, I'd rather see the lights go out before I support nuclear", because you know that if you said that, people wouldn't pay any attention to you, but that is the truth. That's the real meaning of energy conservation. You are trying to dictate how much electricity others should be allowed to consume. BTW, I all for energy conservation, but I would NEVER use it as an excuse for keeping coal over nuclear.

Again, if there were a real solution to offset 100% of fossil fuels without nuclear, Hawaii or Puerto Rico would be simple to deploy on a small scale. Just make it happen. Reality is you can't because it doesn't work. It's 90% wishful thinking and 10% we can do it partially.

Until it's proven on at least a scale of a million people or more, then you radical anti nuclear can say you won the debate. Until then, you are only selling a dream.

 

[VolkerP]

Younicos runs a demonstration project to switch over the electric grid of La Graciosa to 100% renewables. The solution is to overbuild generation capacity, amend it with storage, and to transform the Diesel generator plant from base load duty to standby backup using Biodiesel.
Younicos: Younicos - The island test bay Autonomous supply of a complete island grid from renewable energy sources
Renewables with storage will be economically viable in locations where fossil fuels are expensive, as in shipping Diesel fuel to an island and burning it in an ICE. The question is are we willing to work from there, or go nuclear.