Something like the old joke of how do you become a millionaire... start with a billion and invest in nuclear power.As Dr Evil would say, why make one trillion when you can make one billion.
Here in wine country, it's the same joke but with "buy a vineyard/winery."
And unfavorable policies in the United States
And unfavorable policies in the United States
Your off by a factor of three or four on the quantity of renewables. Dont get me wrong, I like renewables. You just need a lot more, and then we need something to do with renewables rather then just throttling renewables. Perhaps storage, hydrogen, or something else.
And unfavorable policies in the United States
Your off by a factor of three or four on the quantity of renewables. Dont get me wrong, I like renewables. You just need a lot more, and then we need something to do with renewables rather then just throttling renewables. Perhaps storage, hydrogen, or something else.
)If this process scales, then that would be huge! Like, "why switch to zero-emissions vehicles when it all zeros out" huge! In that situation, hydrogen is doomed and EV's would only have the advantage of higher efficiency and no NOx, SOx, nor soot. Might still win out in passenger vehicle cases, but long-haul trucking and cargo ships might never switch.
Policies, unfavorable drilling policies.What policies? As I've pointed out before nuclear power is fundamentally flawed. Even if the heat source was free it's still gonna cost >$40/MWh to convert that heat into electricity. Why on Earth would you choose to spend $40 to convert 3 MWhs of fission heat into 1 MWh of electricity when you can just get a MWh from wind or photons for ~$20?
We could abolish the NRC and just live with a reactor meltdown every 10 years and nuclear power would STILL be more expensive per kWh than renewables.
When it makes fiscal sense to do something other than throttle renewables then something other than throttling renewables will happen. If it costs $40M to reduce 'throttling' by 10GWh per year with storage, hydrogen or something else but you can increase net wind generation by 40GWh per year even after throttling losses..... wouldn't.... wouldn't you just add more wind? 40 > 10. I expect curtailment to increase significantly as the cost of solar and wind keeps dropping faster than storage, hydrogen or anything else (Except V1G which is effectively free
Economics matters. That's why nuclear has no future and that's why we keep curtailing renewables. Because Economics matters.
You might want to double-check those numbers. The only way you can get those kinds of numbers is if you projected nuclear's life-span to be 60 years and wind and solar's lifespan to be only 15 years (and that's even assuming they're retail prices).
I reported the same figure as nwdiver. Life span 30-40 year for Nuke. Don’t be so afraid of a little radiation, most heeling pools are radioactive.. google it.
The nuclear cost includes funds to decommission the plant at end of life. No such fund exists (AFAIK) for wind and solar farms. Wind farms are a huge mess, with a great deal of non-recyclable materials. Solar is a little better in that regard, but still have significant decommissioning costs. And while a nuclear plant might operate for 50 years or more, industrial solar is good for what, 20-25? In addition, the technology exists to build nuke plants that can "burn" much of our existing stock of waste nuclear fuel.
No. The blades have not been recyclable, although Siemens-Gamesa is now making recyclable blades.
