Nuclear power

[macpacheco]

Agree. But nuclear regulation is burdened by nearly all nuclear power plants being unique (except for a few sites with multiple reactors built at the same time). Moving a resident inspector from one site to another requires training on the stuff that is different at the new place--not just its history, but original unique design. The off-the-shelf standardized designs are such a small percentage.

Another misconception. NRC treats every new nuclear power plant as if its one of a kind. While it was true decades ago that standardization wasn't applied to nukes, newer designs like the AP1000, EPR and others uses maximum standardization, but still the NRC regulatory framework is unable to separate the nuclear reactor (standardized) from the reactor site (case by case).
If the NRC wanted to, it could publish a detailed list of requirements that if met would result in some kind of streamlined certification. Instead the NRC is a textbook example of govt bureaucrazy gone bezerk that has zero interest in making in remotely efficient to certify a new nuke. Again, the problem is the NRC procedures, not the nuclear market itself.
Have you looked at this page:
PRIS - Miscellaneous reports - Nuclear Share

The iaea reactor database, this particular page shows nuclear power share country by country. It's interesting to see that 20 countries produce at least 15% of their electricity from nuclear power, while solar+wind+biomass are still very far from being 2% worldwide average.
Another significant point is that solar + wind are intermittent sources. Germany has already invested over 100 billion euro, increasing Germany's renewables from 10% to 23%, reducing its emissions by just 5% and if they just can't double their investment on solar, since they can't store all that surplus electricity using pumped hydro, instead they dump their excess solar production on its neighbors on a sunny+windy day, also meaning if other European countries try to follow Germany's example, there would be nowhere to dump the overproduction in an European summer day.
Without monster scale electrical battery systems, the Germany solution won't even get to 40% renewables, and when you add the cost of storing just 4 hours of solar+wind production on a nationwide scale, that costs as much as dozens of nuclear power plants today !
Just because subsidies where created that incentive private investment on solar, it doesn't mean the math adds up ! Do the math !
In order to match the currently installed nuclear power electricity base (400GWe of baseload electricity) about 1000GW of solar panels would have to be installed. Even with all the growth, it will likely take decades just to match that on a worldwide basis.

 

[Jeff Miller]

Funded by what?

A portion of the revenues from a carbon tax.

(There is an interesting recent paper by Brookings that shows that a revenue neutral carbon tax, coupled with tax reform - lowering the tax on
capital income, though for example lowering corporate tax rates - would increase economic growth:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/06/03%20economic%20consequences%20delay%20us%20climate%20policy/03_economic_consequences_delay_us_climate_policy.pdf

)

Ask yourself what the easier sell is;

Utility;
Replacing an existing coal plant this is paid for and costs ~$0.03/kWh to operate with a new AP1000 that will cost $0.04/kWh for the first 20 years.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/eleccostsum.pdf

OR

Homeowner / Business
Finance a Solar PV system that saves them $150/mo and costs $150/mo in financing then becomes FREE when paid off.

An appropriately sized carbon tax would immediately change the economics of fossil fuels vs nuclear in favor of nuclear.

We are in total agreement that solar should be aggressively pursued and is part of the carbon free energy solution, along with efficiency and other renewables. We disagree on whether renewables, with current storage technology, can be the entire solution. I take Germany's intention to burn large amounts of coal for many decades to come as a tacit admission that they don't believe renewables are sufficient either.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

We are in total agreement that solar should be aggressively pursued and is part of the carbon free energy solution, along with efficiency and other renewables. We disagree on whether renewables, with current storage technology, can be the entire solution. I take Germany's intention to burn large amounts of coal for many decades to come as a tacit admission that they don't believe renewables are sufficient either.

To me Germany's burning of German coal is just an example of the economic pragmatism that stops renewables from being the final solution. Since renewables are very significantly net energy positive and there are still large inefficiencies in the way humans live, it's pretty clear it's not the state of the art that's the problem.

 

[nwdiver]

A portion of the revenues from a carbon tax.

A carbon tax would increase the cost of fossil fuels but it would not raise revenue for additional utility infrastructure. Every variation of the carbon tax that I'm aware of redistributes the revenue collected back to the US public evenly making it "revenue neutral". The regions where solar PV is "Free" (The cost if a PPA or financing is less than buying power from the grid) expands every year. This trend is very likely to continue.

We are in total agreement that solar should be aggressively pursued and is part of the carbon free energy solution, along with efficiency and other renewables. We disagree on whether renewables, with current storage technology, can be the entire solution.

I support nuclear power... the problem is that as we aggressively expand renewables they will displace centralized power generation. As centralized power generation is used less we need power plants that have a low cost to build / high cost to operate (Like Gas Turbines). Nuclear power has a high cost to build and a low cost to operate. I expect that some areas with high levels of solar PV will probably be able to shutdown plants during the summer months in a few years... you can't do that with nuclear power. It's true that solar is a very small percentage of current generation but it was cost prohibitive in most areas just a few years ago. It's true that storage technology is still too expensive to be viable but we won't need storage until solar PV is ~20% of generation. We're at ~0.2% now, doubling every 2-3 years so we won't need storage for ~15 years and the cost of batteries is falling ~4%/year. In 15 years storage it will be ~half the cost it is now.

 

[Jeff Miller]

Can we afford to wait 15 years for PV to be only 20% of the total electrical grid, with presumably most of the grid still dominated by fossil fuels? Assuming that storage costs do come down at 4% per year like you hope (far from certain), what will those storage costs be? What will the total cost of electricity - renewable + storage - be? In the meanwhile, we are betting on gas. Gas is cheap - today. Did anyone see the current gas glut coming ten years ago? (No.) Can anyone predict the price of gas ten years from now? (No.) Carbon and methane emissions aside, is it wise to make this huge bet on gas being low for decades, given its historical price volatility? (No)

Here's an alternative. We build 300 AP1000s over the next 20 years. Together with current renewables + current nuclear, the grid would be 100% carbon free in twenty years, not 25% carbon free. We would have paid almost all the cost up front - there would be no price volatility down the road. Let's assume that there are no economies of scale - that the 300th plant costs as much as the first one (I find this assumption highly doubtful - prices would almost certainly come down as production scaled up and regulatory overheads were reduced). Total cost would be 7 billion times 300 = 2.1 trillion. That's about 100 billion a year. Per capita, 350 bucks per person per year. That is not going to bankrupt us -we spend 6x that per year on the military. And it would make a big dent in our carbon footprint, with certainty. If our goal is near term, large, and certain reductions in our CO2 emissions (and the climate scientists are telling us it should be our goal) this is the most direct way to reach it. As we electrify the major energy sectors that are currently not electrified like transport and heating, we will have plenty of need for the output of these plants. I don't see them sitting idle.

 

[nwdiver]

Can we afford to wait 15 years for PV to be only 20% of the total electrical grid, with presumably most of the grid still dominated by fossil fuels? Assuming that storage costs do come down at 4% per year like you hope (far from certain), what will those storage costs be? What will the total cost of electricity - renewable + storage - be? In the meanwhile, we are betting on gas. Gas is cheap - today. Did anyone see the current gas glut coming ten years ago? (No.) Can anyone predict the price of gas ten years from now? (No.) Carbon and methane emissions aside, is it wise to make this huge bet on gas being low for decades, given its historical price volatility? (No)

Here's an alternative. We build 300 AP1000s over the next 20 years. Together with current renewables + current nuclear, the grid would be 100% carbon free in twenty years, not 25% carbon free. We would have paid almost all the cost up front - there would be no price volatility down the road. Let's assume that there are no economies of scale - that the 300th plant costs as much as the first one (I find this assumption highly doubtful - prices would almost certainly come down as production scaled up and regulatory overheads were reduced). Total cost would be 7 billion times 300 = 2.1 trillion. That's about 100 billion a year. Per capita, 350 bucks per person per year. That is not going to bankrupt us -we spend 6x that per year on the military. And it would make a big dent in our carbon footprint, with certainty. If our goal is near term, large, and certain reductions in our CO2 emissions (and the climate scientists are telling us it should be our goal) this is the most direct way to reach it. As we electrify the major energy sectors that are currently not electrified like transport and heating, we will have plenty of need for the output of these plants. I don't see them sitting idle.

Maybe this will put the plight of nuclear power into better perspective... Nuclear Power will ALWAYS be utility owned so it must compete with other WHOLE SALE sources. Solar is more likely to be distributed so it only needs to compete with retail rates. How does this not put nuclear power at a severe disadvantage?

 

[macpacheco]

To me Germany's burning of German coal is just an example of the economic pragmatism that stops renewables from being the final solution. Since renewables are very significantly net energy positive and there are still large inefficiencies in the way humans live, it's pretty clear it's not the state of the art that's the problem.

State of the art how ? Today's solar panels that are economical have 15%-25% efficiency. Even if we had 30% efficient solar panels costing the same per Watt as 20% solar panels it would still not solve the problem, neither if we had 50% efficient solar panels. More efficient solar panels decrease install costs (less panels to install), but don't fix the problem of solar not producing at night, and the sharp drop in solar production in the winter and early in the morning/late in the afternoon dropoff, plus the effects of thick clouds/showers passing over solar panels line of sight to the sun.

Please look at this presentation to understand real technical issues with putting solar root top on the grid:
Andrew Dodson - Issues Integrating Renewables @ TEAC6 - YouTube

Germany made massive investment on solar, so in the best weeks of the year+midday with some wind, renewables can power 100% of Germany, but the same panels in the winter produce less than 15% of what it produces in the summertime. And while wind can produce lots of cumulative GWh, production is far from uniform, resulting in huge energy storage challenges, and Germany doesn't have enough pumped hydro capacity to make up for when the wind is weak in a winter evening.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't put solar panels in your house and take advantage of feed in tariffs. It makes sense today to have 10-15% of overall electricity production coming from solar PV, as it matches air conditioning electricity demand quite well, but it doesn't replace baseload (nuclear/fossil/hydro).
It's not enough to be pro nuclear, we must argue and win the debate that nuclear is needed and can't wait another 10 years to startup lots of nuclear construction projects.
Even with Tesla Giga Li-Ion battery factories, having 3-4 hour storage of solar will more than double solar PV costs !

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

State of the art how ? Today's solar panels that are economical have 15%-25% efficiency. Even if we had 30% efficient solar panels costing the same per Watt as 20% solar panels it would still not solve the problem, neither if we had 50% efficient solar panels. More efficient solar panels decrease install costs (less panels to install), but don't fix the problem of solar not producing at night, and the sharp drop in solar production in the winter and early in the morning/late in the afternoon dropoff, plus the effects of thick clouds/showers passing over solar panels line of sight to the sun.

Please look at this presentation to understand real technical issues with putting solar root top on the grid:
Andrew Dodson - Issues Integrating Renewables @ TEAC6 - YouTube

Germany made massive investment on solar, so in the best weeks of the year+midday with some wind, renewables can power 100% of Germany, but the same panels in the winter produce less than 15% of what it produces in the summertime. And while wind can produce lots of cumulative GWh, production is far from uniform, resulting in huge energy storage challenges, and Germany doesn't have enough pumped hydro capacity to make up for when the wind is weak in a winter evening.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't put solar panels in your house and take advantage of feed in tariffs. It makes sense today to have 10-15% of overall electricity production coming from solar PV, as it matches air conditioning electricity demand quite well, but it doesn't replace baseload (nuclear/fossil/hydro).
It's not enough to be pro nuclear, we must argue and win the debate that nuclear is needed and can't wait another 10 years to startup lots of nuclear construction projects.
Even with Tesla Giga Li-Ion battery factories, having 3-4 hour storage of solar will more than double solar PV costs !

Cost is a pragmatic issue and is largely artificial. I don't see why you get so worked up about poor decisions when the only reason they matter is because of other poor decisions. My point about Germany was that their move to coal isn't due to a lack of belief in renewables, it was because of the economic and political realities that prevent nations from taking what they consider to be the right decision.

 

[nwdiver]

The bottom line is that absent totalitarian states or rapidly growing economies there is no path to a nuclear future; none. The cheapest power plant is the one that already exists; utilities WILL NOT invest $Billions$ to replace existing power generation. Homeowners and Businesses do and will invest $thousands$ to generate their own clean power and save money on their utility bills. The utility death cycle has begun; if you love nuclear power but hate gore... look away now :crying:

In terms of Solar + Storage the costs do increase exponentially 50 => 100% but that matters little since nuclear dies(economically) when it's capacity factor dips below ~70%. Even if Solar + Storage turns out to be more expensive (I doubt it)... Solar + Storage just has to beat RETAIL RATES (~$0.12/kWh); Nuclear has to beat whole sale rates ($0.04/kWh)

I'm not debating the merits of nuclear power; I would absolutely LOVE 100% nuclear... there's just no feasible way to get there :crying:

 

[Jeff Miller]

I'm not debating the merits of nuclear power; I would absolutely LOVE 100% nuclear... there's just no feasible way to get there :crying:

I understand you are making an economic argument and not arguing against nuclear power in itself and your prognosis may well be right. I'm just trying to get a handle on the numbers.

As a first approximation, it seems reasonable to consider the total societal cost of a proposed carbon solution and not worry about the distinction between retail and wholesale. Also, some of the retail rate is for maintaing the grid which is a real cost that has to be paid regardless of whether we go solar or nuclear or some other route. We saw above that the "all nuclear" solution entails a capital expense of 2.1 trillion over 20 years (~350 per person per year for 20 years; this assumes no economies of scale in nuclear construction so I think is a conservative estimate). This would provide very stable, very low operating cost electricity for ~60 years, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, throughout the year. This would clearly solve a big chunk of our carbon problem and do so on a scale of decades.

What about solar? What would the capital cost of a similar amount of solar energy be? For the AP-1000 calculation, I assumed the plants would run 90% of the time. The total output from 300 1.1GW plants is 300*1.1*.9*365*24 = 2.6 million GWH per year. For solar, let's make a number of generous assumptions. Let's first assume that a 1 KW system produces 2 MWH of electricity per year. Most places in the US will not produce this much (in Chicago, a 1 KW system would only produce 1.35 MWH), but let's go with the the much more optimistic number. Let's also assume "all in" installed costs of $2 per watt. This is half the rate that I was quoted last year, but let's assume that costs continue to come down (without rebates; it doesn't make sense to include rebates when considering the total social cost). Then to produce the same energy as the nuclear plants, we'd need around 1,300 GW of solar (~4x as much as the nuclear because the capacity factor is much lower). At a cost of $2 per watt, this comes to 2.6 trillion dollars, or 20% more than the nuclear plants.

However although the two solutions produce the same amount of energy over the year, they are not equivalent. While nuclear plants crank away at a steady rate, we would get all of our solar during the day; much more in summer than winter; and very little on cloudy days. So we would absolutely need storage on a grand scale. Storage means losses from various dissipative processes, so we would need to install more solar to cover these losses - maybe 30% more. We'd also need additional solar to provide a buffer against long periods of heavy cloud cover, and to provide for the fact that in the winter, in the north, solar outputs are half of what they are in the summer. The storage itself is going to be expensive. Finally, the solar panels don't have a rated 60 year life like the nuclear plants. It's more like 25. I know you are optimistic that they will last longer than that, but even if they do, it will be at a reduced rate of production. So we would need to replace many of the panels (or add new panels) over the course of the 60 years. All these things will greatly increase the total cost of the solar solution.

Looking at the numbers as above, it seems to me that the "all nuclear" solution is much less expensive and more straightforward than the "all solar" solution. Would it require a strong push from government? No doubt - but any carbon solution will require such a push. But this is certainly do-able, both from a technical and an economic perspective.

 

[nwdiver]

I'm not only considering the cost of solar today but future projections; the equipment cost of solar is already <$2/w; Module prices are headed towards <$0.30/w; The Balance of system cost could well fall below $1/w by 2020.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/citigroup-how-solar-module-prices-could-fall-to-25cwatt-41384

At $1/w that's ~$0.03/kWh over 20 years for average solar insolation (~4.5 hours) Seattle is 3; New Mexico is 6.

For Storage the cost of LiFePO4 batteries is projected to fall to ~$200/kWh in 2020.
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/11/08/li-ion-battery-prices-headed--down-180-kwh/

The cycle life of LiFePO4 is ~10000 that's $0.02/kWh. So the cost of Solar + Storage in 2020 will likely be ~$0.05/kWh

Solar 2020 = $0.03/kWh
Solar + Storage 2020 = $0.05/kWh
AP1000 @$5B = $0.04/kWh
AP1000 (Vogtle) @$8B = $0.06/kWh

Then there's transmission costs of ~$0.02/kWh

The easy way to compare costs is just divide the $/w by the capacity factor;
Solar $1 / .18 = 5.5
Nuclear $5 / .9 = 5.5

Nuclear NEEDS that high capacity factor to be competitive; Solar WILL drive it down;
Nuclear $5/ .7 = 7.1

Looking at the numbers as above, it seems to me that the "all nuclear" solution is much less expensive and more straightforward than the "all solar" solution. Would it require a strong push from government? No doubt - but any carbon solution will require such a push. But this is certainly do-able, both from a technical and an economic perspective.

The Trillion dollar question again... where do you see all the money necessary to replace existing generation coming from? The money solution for Solar PV is simple homeowners and businesses pay for the systems. WHY? because they're paying $0.12/kWh and solar costs MUCH less. Do we allow utilities to "pre-jack" rates $0.02/kWh to raise money? That would make self-generation even MORE attractive. Even IF nuclear is cheaper than solar... where does the money come from?

 

[derekt75]

... Solar + Storage just has to beat RETAIL RATES (~$0.12/kWh); Nuclear has to beat whole sale rates ($0.04/kWh)

I'm not debating the merits of nuclear power; I would absolutely LOVE 100% nuclear... there's just no feasible way to get there :crying:

If PG&E pays $0.04/kWh to generate the electricity, and I pay $0.20/kWh to use the electricity, where does the other $0.16 go?
a few pennies go into transmission. a few pennies go into PG&E administration. but where does the dime go?
I'm not trying to make a point; I'm genuinely curious about the large gross margin percentage.

 

[nwdiver]

If PG&E pays $0.04/kWh to generate the electricity, and I pay $0.20/kWh to use the electricity, where does the other $0.16 go?
a few pennies go into transmission. a few pennies go into PG&E administration. but where does the dime go?
I'm not trying to make a point; I'm genuinely curious about the large gross margin percentage.

Wholesale rates can vary WIDELY from place to place... my experience is that retail is typically 2-3x wholesale. Does that $0.20/kWh include taxes?

 

[nwdiver]

For utilities, their nightmare just got real...
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...city-in-25-states-next-year-nrg-ceo?fbfanpage

 

[macpacheco]

The bottom line is that absent totalitarian states or rapidly growing economies there is no path to a nuclear future; none. The cheapest power plant is the one that already exists; utilities WILL NOT invest $Billions$ to replace existing power generation. Homeowners and Businesses do and will invest $thousands$ to generate their own clean power and save money on their utility bills. The utility death cycle has begun; if you love nuclear power but hate gore... look away now :crying:

In terms of Solar + Storage the costs do increase exponentially 50 => 100% but that matters little since nuclear dies(economically) when it's capacity factor dips below ~70%. Even if Solar + Storage turns out to be more expensive (I doubt it)... Solar + Storage just has to beat RETAIL RATES (~$0.12/kWh); Nuclear has to beat whole sale rates ($0.04/kWh)

I'm not debating the merits of nuclear power; I would absolutely LOVE 100% nuclear... there's just no feasible way to get there :crying:

Unless you are not concerned about climate change, we need to quickly change the anti nuclear position that prevents politicians from being openly pro nuclear.
Solar+Wind+Biomass+Geothermal alone won't solve climate change.
We can't wait another 10 years to start building more nuclear.
My only hope right now is the only apparently credible molten salt program pans out (Terrestrial Energy Inc from Canada, Dr. David LeBlanc). They are aiming for an absolutely as simple as possible DMSR reactor running on a mix of thorium+enriched uranium, built in a modular fashion (like 500MWt). Might have the first few only by 2025. If this pans out it will be like half the cost of a traditional solid fuel/water cooled nuke.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If PG&E pays $0.04/kWh to generate the electricity, and I pay $0.20/kWh to use the electricity, where does the other $0.16 go?
a few pennies go into transmission. a few pennies go into PG&E administration. but where does the dime go?
I'm not trying to make a point; I'm genuinely curious about the large gross margin percentage.

If you are using the $0.20/kWh rate, the equivalent generation rate you should use to compare is $0.09/kWh, not $0.04/kWh.

If you look at the rate schedule, what you are actually paying is:
$0.09202 for generation
$0.06791 for distribution
$0.01898 for transmission (including "transmission rate adjustments")
$0.02287 for other miscellaneous charges

$0.20178 Total (unadjusted)

Then you have the "Conservation Incentive Adjustment" which is a tiered rate that penalizes you for using too much electricity. That's where most of the difference comes from.
Baseline Usage -$0.06551 (credit)
101% - 130% of Baseline -$0.04687 (credit)
131% - 200% of Baseline $0.14098
201% - 300% of Baseline $0.18098
Over 300% of Baseline $0.18098

http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf

So for the "baseline rate" of $0.13627, the equivalent generation is $0.09202-$0.06551 (for the "Conservation Incentive Adjustment") = $0.02651 for generation, or if you spread that adjustment over generation and distribution evenly, you get $0.05433 for generation and $0.04009 for distribution.

That's what nwdriver is using in his comparison (plus he is also looking at wholesale which is a whole other ballgame).

PG&E is perhaps not a very good example in terms of looking a power company margins because their profits are "decoupled" from the energy price:
http://www.pge.com/en/mybusiness/myaccount/rateinfo/index.page

 

[Jeff Miller]

The Trillion dollar question again... where do you see all the money necessary to replace existing generation coming from? The money solution for Solar PV is simple homeowners and businesses pay for the systems. WHY? because they're paying $0.12/kWh and solar costs MUCH less. Do we allow utilities to "pre-jack" rates $0.02/kWh to raise money? That would make self-generation even MORE attractive. Even IF nuclear is cheaper than solar... where does the money come from?

We as a society - or an an international community - are going to have to answer that question. I suggested one way - using some of the proceeds of a carbon tax; I'm sure there are other ideas. Eliminating carbon emissions quickly won't be free and won't be painless. On the other hand it need not be disastrously expensive - yet. But somehow the idea that there is going to be a free lunch - that we really don't need to do much of anything other than wait a few more years for the costs of solar and storage to plummet, and that we can eliminate carbon quickly and save money at the same time strikes me as unlikely to put it mildly. I've never seen any detailed analysis suggesting that this is possible. No country has even remotely succeeded in doing so, even in places where the cost of fossil fuels is high. Finally, it's one thing to say that utilities are having a harder time making money because solar and wind are disrupting their old business model. It's quite another thing to say that this means we're going to have a decarbonized energy system in 30 years. One doesn't follow from the other.

 

[nwdiver]

that we really don't need to do much of anything other than wait a few more years for the costs of solar and storage to plummet, and that we can eliminate carbon quickly and save money at the same time strikes me as unlikely to put it mildly.

Wait? Who said we should wait? The great thing about solar is it's cost effective NOW and we don't need storage... yet. 20% of production is 20% of production wether it's spread through a 24 hour period or concentrated between 10 and 2... I'm certainly not waiting...

Eliminating Carbon AND saving money may strike you as unlikely but IT'S TRUE... ABSOLUTELY TRUE!... The PV systems I've installed will pay for themselves in 4-10 years... I call that "Free". Don't wait.... ACT! :wink:

 

[Jeff Miller]

There are ways to save money - on the margins - as your photos indicate. It's when we move beyond the margins, and consider the problem of 100% decarboniztion of the energy system across the entire world within the next few decades, that things become more complicated and more expensive. Lunch appetizers may be free but dinner won't be. That said, I applaud your initiative and wish I had a better situation (more sun, fewer trees, a better roof) for solar myself.

On financing nuclear, one clean way to begin would be to start with a carbon tax, say $20 a ton right now, increasing 4% a year beyond inflation. That would shift the playing field against fossil fuels including gas. At the same time, we should provide nuclear with exactly the same subsidies as renewables. What these subsidies should be, once we have a carbon tax, is unclear - the carbon tax does the job of a subsidy but more directly and cleanly. Arguably, as Paulson notes in his NYTimes piece, once a carbon tax is in place, we should eliminate subsidies (obviously for fossil fuels as well). Finally, we should start changing the way we think about the problem. The distinction we should be drawing is not between renewables vs non-rewables, but carbon emitting vs non-carbon emitting. This might just be semantics, but how people frame the issue influences how they think about solutions.

 

[Dave EV]

Looking at the numbers as above, it seems to me that the "all nuclear" solution is much less expensive and more straightforward than the "all solar" solution. Would it require a strong push from government? No doubt - but any carbon solution will require such a push. But this is certainly do-able, both from a technical and an economic perspective.

Your conclusion falls apart because in an "all nuclear" scenario you need storage if you want to run the plants at 90% capacity.

Otherwise you need 3x more nuclear capacity to handle peak loads and at which point nuclear will be running around a 30% capacity factor. Will kills your "nuclear is cheaper" argument.

There is no silver bullet here - we need solutions from across the spectrum to de-carbonize the electric grid.