How does it compare to wind and solar with redundancy (either battery or backup NG)? The other issue with wind is the huge area a wind farm of comparable output to a nuclear plant requires.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Nuclear does not cover daily or seasonal peak demand periods, so you have to add batteries and/or NG and/or H2 to that system as well.
Yep - all the existing economics of nuclear assumes 90%+ capacity factors. In California, the minimum net loads well into the negative territory.
I picked a random from earlier this year, Sunday (May 1st, 2022) and peak solar/wind curtailment was around 6 GW, exports peaked round 4 GW.
Gas and nuclear was generating about 3 GW, but I have to assume that this was more for grid stability or other guaranteed contracts rather than economics.
If you have to build new nuclear and your capacity factor is only 50% instead of 90%+, now your economics are seriously broken for the plant.
Solar + batteries will lead the way.
Solar panels are warrantied for 25 years. Useful life is likely over 40. Burning old fuel in a reactor is even more expensive than disposing of it. Generally speaking making something more expensive isn't going to lower the cost. Nuclear power can't compete because it requires producing heat as an intermediate step. Until that changes it's pointless to even consider as a serious option.
The difference? With wind or solar, you have to add those redundancies just to output stable, continuous, reliable base load power, 24/7. By your argument, additional power to cover peak loads would be required for both scenarios.
I love how people think EV and renewables only last the period of warranty but that rule does not apply to fossil fueled cars and generators. Can you imagine if gas cars only last the 60k warranty miles then you have to buy a new gas car? LOL
.... that's the point. You still need to add batteries and/or NG and/or H2 with nuclear. So why pay ~15x more per GW and ~5x per GWh with nuclear. For CA just have ~60GW of gas turbines with lots of solar, wind and storage to reduce fuel use. Same amount of clean energy and reliability as nuclear at ~20% the cost.
Here is an interesting article-though it still lacks the detail I would like to see. Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia
So the question I have-a 1Gw output nuclear plant will output 1GwH every hour, 24/7, 365 (or close to it allowing for maintenance). What is the cost to get 1 Gw 24/7 from a renewable source, allowing for the cost of redundancies? I have actually spent quite a bit of time looking for this information and not found a concise answer. Oh, and to make it interesting-lets assume that's in my old home town in N. Idaho, at 49 degrees N. Lat. With about 7 1/2 total hours of sunlight a day, allowing for cloud cover and coverage of the solar panels by snow some percentage of the time. Most evaluations of solar costs I see assume an installation in CA or AZ, with "generating capacity" expressed as a peak, not allowing for cloud cover, less than ideal solar incidence angles and, well, darkness.
This isn't that complicated. You're asking how to get 1GW of reliable generation and ~8,000GWh/yr which is what you can expect from a $15B investment in nuclear power which BTW will cost ~$200M/yr in O&M whether your nuclear plant produces any energy or not.
1GW of gas turbines will provide that 1GW 24/7/365 same as 1GW of nuclear for ~$1B instead of $15B and cost ~$20M/yr to keep operational not $200M. To get ~8,000GWh/yr of clean energy from solar you'd need ~3GW in a sunnier area or ~6GW in less sunny areas at a cost of $3B - $6B. Or ~2GW of wind at a cost of ~$2B. No matter how you slice it an investment in nuclear only makes sense if you're looking for a really complicated way to get rid of cash.
Want another GW? Get NG. Want ~8,000GWh/yr of clean energy? Get renewables. Want 1GW & 8,000GWh/yr of clean energy? Get NG and renewables. Want a jobs program to keep 5,000 people pointlessly employed for 10+ years? Get nuclear.
Adding 1GW of nuclear will also take ~10 years to see any energy from while NG, Solar and wind take ~10 months.
The fastest, cheapest way to 100% renewable will probably be to stop obsessing over 100% renewables.
If you want 1GW nuclear 24/7 you'll need to build 2GW nuclear because the 1GW will sometimes be down.
You wouldn't do that. You'd build 1GW nuclear and 1GW natural gas combustion turbine, because they're cheap.
And if you want 100% renewables, you'd build a mixture of solar and wind, with some batteries for the evening peak and then also build a bunch of NG CT and not push the 100% renewable, unless you could easily incorporate enough biogas. And, with the renewables being siginificantly cheaper per MWh than nuclear, for the same money you'll generate a lot more electricity. Get those smart EVSEs ready.
If you're in Northern Idaho, you'd be using hydroelectricity as a good chunk of the mix (after all hydro is Idaho's largest source of electricity) and then wanting to combine that with solar and wind, rather than being more focused on solar. Northern Idaho would only give about 70% of the annual solar compared to somewhere sunnier like Phoenix, AZ. Idaho is something like 45% renewable already so it doesn't even have as far to go as some other states.
Just as an aside, since we are talking about Idaho, the Nez Perce Tribe along with other northwest tribes may force breaching of at least some of the hydroelectric dams (due to the effect on salmon, which is a treaty issue). They are already committed to solar plus battery (having installed in some communities already), and have discussed the small, portable self contained nuclear modules as backup (don't know whether that's realistic or actually in the picture). They want to be green to what extent they can.
In addition, a lot of the high power transmission lines across the West were illegally installed on tribal lands, and they may require them to be moved (yes, they already have had some moved).
They hate the dams.
New diesel trucks could be banned by 2040 in California and medium/heavy duty trucks entering ports and railyears be zero emission by 2035.
calmatters.org
A bunch of related news articles hit the wires today for some reason about it as well.
Honestly, I don't think very many people will want diesel trucks by 2040 with the way things are going anyway...
Big change for big rigs: California unveils mandate to phase out diesel trucks
In another worldwide first, California would require new trucks to be zero-emissions in 2040. Large companies would gradually convert fleets.
calmatters.org
Honestly, I don't think very many people will want diesel trucks by 2040 with the way things are going anyway...
Interesting twist I hadn't thought about.
China's electricity generation annually from 2000 to 2020
China has been increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in its electricity generation, but coal remains a predominant source. In 2020, China generated 4,775 TWh from coal-fired power plants, a 63% share of China’s electricity generation. In 2000, coal accounted for 77% of China’s electricity generation (992 TWh). In the intervening 20 years, non-fossil fuels, including hydroelectric, wind, and solar generation, grew to 27% (2,058 TWh) of China’s generation mix, from 17% (221 TWh) in 2000. Solar has been the fastest-growing generation source and grew by an average of 43% each year from 2015 to 2020. Solar accounted for 6% of China’s electricity generation in 2020.
China increased electricity generation annually from 2000 to 2020
mspohr
Well-Known Member
How the gas industry capitalized on the Ukraine war to change Biden policy
The Russian tanks and armored vehicles had barely begun to roll into Ukraine before the fossil fuel industry in the US had swung into action. A letter was swiftly dispatched to the White House, urging an immediate escalation in gas production and exports to Europe ahead of an anticipated energy crunch. The letter, dated 25 February, just one day after Vladimir Putin’s forces launched their assault on Ukraine, noted the “dangerous juncture” of the moment before segueing into a list of demands: more drilling on US public lands; the swift approval of proposed gas export terminals; and pressure on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an independent agency, to green-light pending gas pipelines.
The Russian tanks and armored vehicles had barely begun to roll into Ukraine before the fossil fuel industry in the US had swung into action. A letter was swiftly dispatched to the White House, urging an immediate escalation in gas production and exports to Europe ahead of an anticipated energy crunch. The letter, dated 25 February, just one day after Vladimir Putin’s forces launched their assault on Ukraine, noted the “dangerous juncture” of the moment before segueing into a list of demands: more drilling on US public lands; the swift approval of proposed gas export terminals; and pressure on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an independent agency, to green-light pending gas pipelines.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Senator Joe Manchin unveils bill that would expedite federal energy projects
The US senator Joe Manchin released an energy permitting bill on Wednesday to speed up fossil fuel and clean energy projects. The bill is expected to be attached to a measure to temporarily fund the government that Congress must pass before 1 October. The legislation would require the federal government to issue permits for Equitrans Midstream Corp’s long-delayed $6.6bn Mountain Valley Pipeline to take natural gas between West Virginia, Manchin’s home state, and Virginia. The wider funding bill needs approval of the House and Senate and to be signed by Joe Biden to become law. Manchin’s staff told reporters that he believed the funding bill will would get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate with the permitting measure attached.
The US senator Joe Manchin released an energy permitting bill on Wednesday to speed up fossil fuel and clean energy projects. The bill is expected to be attached to a measure to temporarily fund the government that Congress must pass before 1 October. The legislation would require the federal government to issue permits for Equitrans Midstream Corp’s long-delayed $6.6bn Mountain Valley Pipeline to take natural gas between West Virginia, Manchin’s home state, and Virginia. The wider funding bill needs approval of the House and Senate and to be signed by Joe Biden to become law. Manchin’s staff told reporters that he believed the funding bill will would get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate with the permitting measure attached.
SilverString
Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Huge expansion of oil pipelines endangering climate, says report
More than 24,000km of new oil pipelines are under development around the world, a distance equivalent to almost twice the Earth’s diameter, a report has revealed. The projects, led by the US, Russia, China and India, are “dramatically at odds with plans to limit global warming to 1.5C or 2C”, the researchers said. The oil pumped through the pipelines would produce at least 5bn tonnes of CO2 a year if completed, equivalent to the emissions of the US, the world’s second largest polluter. About 40% of the pipelines are already under construction, with the rest in planning. Global carbon emissions must drop by 50% by 2030 to keep on track with internationally agreed targets for limiting global heating. The developers of the 10,000km of pipelines in construction stand to lose up to $75bn (£70bn) if action on the climate crisis prevents the new pipelines being fully used, according to the analysts at Global Energy Monitor (GEM) who produced the report.
More than 24,000km of new oil pipelines are under development around the world, a distance equivalent to almost twice the Earth’s diameter, a report has revealed. The projects, led by the US, Russia, China and India, are “dramatically at odds with plans to limit global warming to 1.5C or 2C”, the researchers said. The oil pumped through the pipelines would produce at least 5bn tonnes of CO2 a year if completed, equivalent to the emissions of the US, the world’s second largest polluter. About 40% of the pipelines are already under construction, with the rest in planning. Global carbon emissions must drop by 50% by 2030 to keep on track with internationally agreed targets for limiting global heating. The developers of the 10,000km of pipelines in construction stand to lose up to $75bn (£70bn) if action on the climate crisis prevents the new pipelines being fully used, according to the analysts at Global Energy Monitor (GEM) who produced the report.
Electrek: Tesla Megapacks arrive in Hawaii with the state’s last coal shipment.
electrek.co
Aloha Megapack
Aloha Coal.
Tesla Megapacks arrive in Hawaii with the state's last coal shipment
Tesla Megapacks arrive in Hawaii with the state's last coal shipment as it shifts its grid to renewables supported by energy storage.
electrek.co
Aloha Megapack
Aloha Coal.
Similar threads
