Von Hoene described nuclear power as "a bridge to a different kind of carbon-free world."
The article's title really doesn't express Von Hoene's point. Operating costs, before paying back loans, are too high to run *existing* nuclear plants. He relates the much longer odds we'll ever see new ones, but it is the retirements that are the story. 1-2 cents/KWh would layer above 2-3 cent wholesale prices, and keep them on. The whole issue takes place in an entirely different price arena, than retail power prices to the consumer. In a 4-5 cent wholesale market, these plants would stay alive. People paying 15-20 cents, on average in CA, or paying closer to 20 cents in MA, CT, RI, who subordinate nuclear risk to CO2 risk, probably wouldn't flinch at 1-2 cent support (it implies a $10-20 carbon price, or "ZEC", if it blocks coal, $20-40 if natural gas). Someone earlier saying "500 million" in NY doesn't mean anything, in a vacuum.
There isn't much to taking a holistic view, if one is anti-nuclear. You want them all shut down, and can remain singularly focused. If you hate fracking, you can be singular there, too. If you love wind and/or solar...."me too". But if you prioritize global warming and economics, you realize more of a stratified "all hands on deck" mentality regarding the number of implied carbon prices you'll need to face in order to have a prayer of keeping temperature increases near 2C.
From where I sit, I was talking to a utility yesterday, who closed its nuke and aims to have its coal DOWN TO ~50% of all generation, by 2020. They should have zero fear of federal regulation, because their state has developed wind to "beat the band". They're legally set. That coal can keep chugging. Holistically, it is still there in the mix, just as a lot of natural gas will still be in CA's mix, after Diablo Canyon closes, in 2025. Holistically, there is a point where wind and solar growth will see greater challenge without 24/7 dispatch'able support, or expensive storage. Holistically, Brattle group is out there saying we could have 75% more U.S. electric consumption, from EVs and electric water heaters by 2050 (Yes,
>3,000TWh, if we're lucky!).
But people would rather dance on the graves of nuclear plants, than show concern for years of state RPS progress going down the tubes, and/or the consequences of new generation, upon CO2. PJM (that's the major ISO that crosses the midwest) reported that backfills for its coal & nuke closures will be 60% natural gas, and 18% wind.
http://www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM_State_of_the_Market/2017/2017-som-pjm-sec12.pdf . It's a start, but it won't even halve their emissions.
There are plenty of environmentalists wanting to mimic, or defend, the ZEC supports found in IL, and NY (NRDC, EDF..). NJ just passed something towards its. But because this is so political, and the Republicans and Trump want to do it their (+coal) way, most states, or ISO's represented by the FERC, might take their marbles home. For different reasons, much of the political spectrum wants the same thing (yes, some don't), but this is sort of how the $7,500 battery tax-credit passed. They weren't screaming "CO2". They found common ground.
