mspohr
Well-Known Member
If you keep nuclear open, you stunt the growth of renewables.
Spending $6 billion on nuclear means that less will be spent on renewables. You should be able to "get" this.
-
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
Spending $6 billion on nuclear means that less will be spent on renewables. You should be able to "get" this.
One of my bigger concerns in all of this is a relatively "good" problem to have from a global perspective.
As much of the world has rudely awakened to the need for energy security (sadly climate was not important enough alone), renewables -solar/wind and batteries will be markedly supply constrained for a few years.
Europe, as just one huge example, will absorb everything it can get its hands on. Unfortunately, during that time renewable purchase prices will not fall.
As much of the world has rudely awakened to the need for energy security (sadly climate was not important enough alone), renewables -solar/wind and batteries will be markedly supply constrained for a few years.
Europe, as just one huge example, will absorb everything it can get its hands on. Unfortunately, during that time renewable purchase prices will not fall.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I’m fine with investing in nuclear life extension as long as it’s structured in a way that it doesn’t slow the deployment of solar, wind and storage. We probably are hitting deployment material constraints where accelerating production is forcing an exponential increase in cost.
Maybe nationalize nukes instead of closing them. That would actually be fairly easy over a few years. The Navy is good at operating nukes.
The money will come from a separate Federal fund that's been started directly because of the natural gas crisis.
California generation is 48% natural gas, and 8.5% nuclear.
Keeping nuclear open isn't going to stunt renewable growth at all.
SmartElectric
Active Member
And yet Ontario Canada has a lesson for you.
We elected a Conservative Government that has entirely redirected renewable funding to Nuclear.
In fact, they spent $400M to cancel renewable contracts, pay penalty, rip working wind turbines out of the ground, and then $20B goes to a nuclear refurbishment program.
Now, Ontario is spending a billion to bring a US made nuclear technology to Ontario rather than building out our own home grown (and world class) nuclear tech.
Ontario has shown it's not true that spending billions on nuclear won't affect renewables, there is a finite supply of money and influence peddling, once nuclear get's it's political funding power, it stays "sticky" due to the big pot of stupid money spent year after year.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
That's the problem with infrastructure. Once it is built, there is a powerful financial interest in keeping it running even beyond stated lifetime.
Ontario looks like it deserves a special award for being stupidly evil.
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
United States needs more nuclear. lets make the balls of green people glow green! lol
So we also need higher taxes, higher electric rates and more inflation from funding nuclear boondoggles? Why?
I don't necessarily mind those things... but I kinda want to get more than a yard full of scrap metal in exchange...
SCE&G customers will ultimately pay $3.8B for VC Summer under Dominion deal
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Nuclear dying in France
French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europe’s Push to Quit Russian Energy French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europe’s Push to Quit Russian Energy
But the industry has tumbled into an unprecedented power crisis as EDF confronts troubles ranging from the mysterious emergence of stress corrosion inside nuclear plants to a hotter climate that is making it harder to cool the aging reactors.
But the few new nuclear reactors that EDF has built have been dogged by huge cost overruns and delays. An EDF-made pressurized water reactor at Hinkley Point, in southwest England, won’t start operating until 2027 — four years behind schedule and too late to help Britain’s swift turn from Russian oil and gas. Finland’s newest EDF nuclear power plant, which started operating last month, was supposed to be completed in 2009.
French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europe’s Push to Quit Russian Energy French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europe’s Push to Quit Russian Energy
But the industry has tumbled into an unprecedented power crisis as EDF confronts troubles ranging from the mysterious emergence of stress corrosion inside nuclear plants to a hotter climate that is making it harder to cool the aging reactors.
But the few new nuclear reactors that EDF has built have been dogged by huge cost overruns and delays. An EDF-made pressurized water reactor at Hinkley Point, in southwest England, won’t start operating until 2027 — four years behind schedule and too late to help Britain’s swift turn from Russian oil and gas. Finland’s newest EDF nuclear power plant, which started operating last month, was supposed to be completed in 2009.
What affected renewables in Ontario wasn't nuclear. It was your foolish electorate.
If you'd closed all the nuclear before you voted for that stooge, the only difference would have been that you'd be spending even more on new nuclear and burning more natural gas.
SmartElectric
Active Member
1. "You", no I didn't vote for him and certainly never for a conservative government which denies climate change.
2. No, new nuclear and gas wouldn't have been the only options to fill the power gap, Quebec has surplus electricity to export that Ontario currently uses in a limited way (500 MW two way sharing agreement). Successive governments (Liberal and Conservative) have prevented progress on making a larger deal with Quebec.
2. They removed working wind generation. Not removing it was also an option.
SmartElectric
Active Member
I agree, and posted that. My point was clear, new nuclear and more gas wasn't a requirement to fill the power production gap.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Even Elon is pro nuclear
Of course he is. He paid $44B for twitter and is slowly converting it into 4Chan
But even Elon agrees that building new nuclear is economic insanity. Says a lot about how economically insane new nuclear is.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Disagree. Every country and everybody has always the option to go renewable IMO.
Because they have no sun? And no wind? and no tidal/hydroelectric? And can't have wires going to it (islands are tricky).
If you worry about imported electricity from a geopolitical standpoint, that is fairly reasonable. But so is importing natural gas or coal.
The fact is that there are very few countries with NG (or coal/oil) and very few countries without sun.
But look at NG. Hard to transport. Maybe 30 countries have enough to make a dent in their need for energy. That leaves 140 or so that don't. The numbers are roughly the same for coal and oil. Uranium is even more concentrated - Kazakhstan is 40-50% of the worlds total production.
Sun and wind are available to more countries than anything else. So what are you talking about?
Similar threads
