Why? Nuclear power is the most complex and expensive option of any clean energy source from what I know.
Nuclear power is good for its consistent output that is independent of outside factors like wind, clouds, or drought. Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn't particularly expensive.
Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn’t particularly expensive.
I wish that were true. Nuclear plants built in the 60s and 70s (but still operating today) was losing money in Ohio. So the power companies bribed the Republican Ohio Speaker of the House $60 million dollars to pass a law that citizens have to pay extra fees totally over $1 billion dollars to power plants so that power companies can make a profit on nuclear. The bill was passed, and signed into law by the governor of Ohio, and years passed before the investigation found the bribery scandal.
That former Ohio Speaker of the House was sentenced to 20 years in prison finally.
So no, even old built nuclear power plants are still more expensive that nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.
Besides maybe coal
They've had to keep upgrading them - the percentage of nuclear is the same, but no new plants have been built, so that extra power has come from research on how close to the red line they can actually run.
New reactors just came online in Georgia this year. A $15 billion dollar planned project that cost $30 billion with overruns.
So new or old, nuclear is really expensive electricity.
A coal power plant is rougly the same cost per GW as solar or wind, doesn't mean we should build more of them.
I agree it's expensive, but so were solar and wind a couple decades ago. Government investment helped research, development, scaling up - imagine if that had been done in the '80s, we wouldn't be building natural gas plants right now.
A coal power plant is rougly the same cost per GW as solar or wind
Incorrect. Costs listed per KW of generation:
Coal power $4,074 (3.07 x the cost of solar PV and 2.37x the cost of onshore wind)
I agree it’s expensive, but so were solar and wind a couple decades ago. Government investment helped research, development, scaling up - imagine if that had been done in the '80s
The first commercial nuclear power plant in the USA came online in 1958. source That's 66 years ago. If time was going to make it cheaper we would have seen that by now. Instead the most recent reactors to come online, which occurred just this year, were projected to cost $14 billion and instead are cost $31 billion! Even worst, this isn't an entirely new nuclear power plant, its just two additional reactors at an existing operational plant. source
Nuclear just costs too much for what you get at the end.
Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regulatory environment, some or all wholesale costs may be passed through to consumers. These are costs per unit of energy, typically represented as dollars/megawatt hour (wholesale). The calculations also assist governments in making decisions regarding energy policy. On average the levelized cost of electricity from utility scale solar power and onshore wind power is less than from coal and gas-fired power stations,: TS-25 but this varies a lot depending on location.: 6–65
Ah, perhaps my source was off. Thanks for the additional data.
But looking at it another way, nuclear is less than twice coal. Estimating the cost of that georgia plant would put it at $16-17B, so those overruns would be atypical.
Without investment, it's going to stay just as expensive. And the main regulating body not having a mandate to develop the technology has just been holding us back.
That consistent output isn't as useful as you think. Solar and wind are ridiculously cheap, so we would want to use them when they're available. That means winding down nuclear plants when those two spin up. I'm turn, that means those initial construction costs you mentioned aren't being efficiently ammortized over the entire life of the plant.
What we can do instead is take historical sun and wind data for a given region, calculate where the biggest trough will be, and then build enough storage capacity to cover it. Even better, aim for 95% coverage in the next few years, with the rest taken up by existing natural gas. There's some non-linear factors involved where getting to 100% is a lot harder than 95%.
This is the trap. The fossil fuel industry has co-opted wind and PV solar by way of filling in the gaps and transitioning to net zero emissions. Of course, the gaps will always be there and the transition will never complete and "net zero" seems to just leave the door open on fossil fuels forever.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, has the reliability that @FireTower@lemmy.world mentioned and it closes any of the gaps from wind and solar right up. You don't have to quickly cut the power on a reactor if it's sunny or windy, just divert it to hydrogen and ammonia production. Even if the efficient high temperature electrolysis tech isn't ready yet, it doesn't really matter since it's emissions free. Furthermore, nuclear power produces good heat/steam to support cogeneration and various industrial processes.
Nonsense. Conservatives have brought up nuclear for decades as a way to play "gotcha" with anti-nuclear progressives. Maggie Thatcher, for example, embraced the science of climate change early on as a way to push nuclear. It was never serious, though. Always a political game that resulted in no new nuclear being built while coal and oil continued to ramp up.
I think Thatcher just wanted to privatize, deregulate, and liberalize as much as she could, all fundamentally bad moves from the perspectives of both labor and greenhouse emissions concerns.
The problem is that there are currently no good (cheap, scalable) technologies to store these large amounts of electrical energy.
There are several lines of storage research that only need to be ramped up to mass production at this point. Since stationary storage doesn't have the weight restrictions that electric car batteries do, there are many different viable options. Flow batteries, sodium batteries, pumping water uphill, big tower of concrete blocks on pullies, hydrogen electrolysis, big ceramic block that gets hot. Some will work wherever, others are only viable in certain situations, but there are many options and we only need one of them to work at scale.
When nuclear tries to make improvements, it tends to do one thing per decade. If it fails, wait another decade to try the next thing. Last decade, it was the AP1000 reactor. It was hoped it would make a single, repeatable design that would avoid the boutique engineering that caused budget and schedule overruns in the past. Didn't work out that way. This decade, it's Small Modular Reactors. The recent collapse of the Utah project doesn't give much hope for it.
Even if it does, it won't be proven out before 2030. We'll want to be on 90% clean electrical technology by then if we have even a hope of keeping climate change at bay. There is no longer a path with nuclear that could do so. Given project construction times, the clock ran out already.
While I don't disagree that it's going to be too late, I do think SMRs are likely to go the distance, at least abroad.
The reality is that we aren't going to hit 90% carbon free by 2030 without a huge social and political shift. There's just no way that is happening in 6 years. I really hate being a downer about it but I think we need to face the facts on it.
I think most of the technologies you mention are currently still too expensive, can't be used everywhere or don't make sense to be used at a large scale. E.g. for pumped hydro you need height differences. Concrete blocks on pullies sound like you need a lot of space for only a small amount of energy (I didn't do the maths, this is just my feeling, so correct me if I'm wrong).
About nuclear energy: in the article I saw that it accounts for 18% of the US electricity production. That's half of the 40% emissions-free part.
So for sure we cannot reach the targets without nuclear energy.
My opinion is that we should keep using it and keep investigating it further, just as we should keep investigating new electricity storage technologies.
Some of those technologies are only awaiting mass production. Economies of scale are all that's needed, not any further breakthroughs in the lab.
The part of that carbon-free total that isn't nuclear or hydro has almost all been installed on the last decade. It got deployed fast and is only accelerating.
If every home was a battery instead of an armory that would be a really cool redundant storage infrastructure. Likely not financially viable compared to centralized storage but it would be kind of cool if their was no immediate central reliance on power so any interruption in power generation could withstand say 1 week of storage reserves nation wide before outages started trickling off to support say hospitals, heating above 40 degrees, etc. Entirely too complicated I’m sure but just a neat thought I had after reading your comment.
Even current lithium-based battery storage is already cheaper than nuclear.
It does not make sense to compare the price of energy storage (lithium batteries), with the price for generating electricity (nuclear energy), or do you mean something else?
People have a hard-on about nuclear being "baseload" power and renewables being intermittent. Solar/wind plus batteries to add dispatchability is a valid comparison to nuclear if you only want to talk about baseload.
Don't forget power companies can also work with smart thermostat manufacturers and car manufacturers to implement demand side tweaks to reduce power consumption. If they need to drop demand by some number of megawatts, they can adjust everyone's thermostate by 1 degree temporarily and easily meet that need, or slow electric car charging by half a kilowatt. As long as there's a manual override for users who need to charge right then or need to change the thermostat right then, this can easily make a significant dent in the variability of the grid with renewables
Consistent output is certainly useful when you break down demand into a constant demand + variable demand. For instance, if demand is typically 200-350 kWh, you could build a nuclear plant to generate 200 kWh and constantly run while you meet the varying 0-150 kWh demand with wind and solar.
I will agree though that we need to run numbers on this to determine the best approach. I don't have a feel for what wins out if we make larger solar and wind farms -- increased cost for the additional capacity, or increased efficiency from economies of scale.
im assuming by "winding down" you mean production of power? Not shutting down the plants, nuclear plants operate the most efficiently at high capacity factor, when they aren't producing power the fuel is still decaying, thus you should be producing power for AS LONG as possible. This is why if you ever look at capacity factor >80% is really common, i've even seen >100% a couple of times, as well as the term "baseload plant" being used almost always in reference to nuclear.
That wouldn't make sense for an existing nuclear plant, the nuclear plant should stay running in place of solar/wind. As you would be burning money actively otherwise, or you could just shut it down permanently, thats the other option.
Yes, running them at a lower level, and yes, that would be my point. You can run them down when renewable sources pick up, but that's inefficient. Solar/wind don't mix well with nuclear; you're leaving something on the table if you try.
That's not a particularly complex way of looking at it. the nuclear plant is a base load plant, meaning you can pretty much just subtract its output from the predicted consumption, and then you can simply have less renewable energy, load peaking is midday anyway, which is when solar is productive. (or have less energy storage, since the nuclear plant will combat that), you would have a more consistent and regular power production at that point, and waste less money. (since you aren't burning money on running a nuclear plant at a reduced/no output, you would technically be burning solar energy (you cant burn wind energy, you just stop the turbine, and it wont produce power) but that's cheaper anyway, and besides beyond install costs, very low continual maintenance)
Though if you were going to shutdown the nuclear plant at its EOL then you would need to increase production of renewables, which is easy enough. Saying that "nuclear and solar/wind don't mix" is just kind of weird. Realistically the only better mix would be solar/wind and gas since gas can manage peak loads super trivially, which is of course not very green. So arguably nuclear would be your ideal match unless you went explicitly solar/wind.
The storage capacity is the hard part. Batteries aren't really a viable option (we don't really have good enough batteries, limits on how many can be made with current resources, etc).
Dams would be good (pump water uphill when electricity is cheap and release when you need the energy back), but dams are not a viable option everywhere and also have a high environmental impact and are arguably not the safest thing for a community.
I read somewhere recently about the idea of putting smaller batteries in individual homes, basically distributing the power ahead of time to a certain number of places so they are not taking from the grid in peak times, but it would be hugely expensive still, and I also question if we have the ability to make so many batteries, much less get enough people to install them.
We have plenty of options. Grid storage doesn't have the same size and weight limitations that electric cars do, which opens up many more possibilities. Flow batteries are getting cranked up for mass production, and that's probably all we need. Even if that doesn't work out, there are other directions to go.
Don't leave out the deconstruction of old nuclear plants after their operational time and the storage of radioactive waste. It's very laborious and expensive.
Hydro is also quite independent but it's heavily dependent on geography. That's how Canada is able to be much ahead in renewable energy.
Also, having nuclear in a 100% low carbon grid is great to stabilize the grid.
A French study showed that having around 13% of nuclear in the grid reduce the solar and battery capacity needed by a factor of two compared to no nuclear.
Nuclear power is bad for its consistent output because demand is not constant. You could of course run some energy hungry chemical reaction when there is more power than demand, make hydrogen to use for synthetic fuels for example or build a battery to store the excess power for when the demand is high. But is is of course much cheaper with renewables.
Total demand is not constant, but you can represent total demand as a sum of a given constant demand plus variable demand. Say for instance the average demand varies from 200-350 kWh a year. You could run nuclear power plants to generate 200 kWh worth of electricity, and use solar/wind for the remaining 0-150 kWh demand. It would be fairly efficient to have nuclear provide a base load of some kind while solar and wind vary to meet the full demand.
Hydro is best as a giant battery bank, and pairs quite well with nuclear.
And yet, after many decades of solar, wind construction. It is the energy source in that pie chart that is sizeable (just as much as all wind and solar) and extremely stable (probably for the last 50 years), without any major construction in the past 30 years minimum.
Wind/solar only ramped up in the last 10 years, not decades. That's when they got cheap. Really cheap. It's nuclear that had a huge head start.
To be fair, Plant Vogtle just turned on Unit 3 earlier this year and Unit 4 should be coming soon.
modern gen 4 plants are MUCH simpler, foregoing PWR loop entirely in favor of liquid metal/salt type reactors, with various different design choices that are all much simpler, and cheaper to build/maintain.
If we see actual development in that field it's not hard to imagine them playing with the fossil fuels, possibly renewables as well given the base load productivity, and relative lack of waste.
That's a good thing. It means lots of hours of well paying engineering and construction work.
Nearly all of nuclear in the USA was built decades ago. Instead of being "paid off" and being cheaper, its still more expensive to generate electricity with nuclear than nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.
Nuclear is the most regulated one. Start requiring full recycling / disposal of solar or wind and how expensive do they get?
Nuclear is the most regulated: True. Accidents in nuclear have the most consequence, by far, of any generation source.
I would imagine that if we're just going for disposal, solar and wind are still pretty cheap. With zero recycling wind turbine blades can just be buried after their 25 year life cycle. source.
Same landfill disposal option is available for solar panels at $1 to $5 per panel. source
This would be the level of disposal nuclear has, except low and high level nuclear waste is much more costly and potentially destructive even after disposal.
Burying it in the ground with no considerations for leachants is not what nuclear disposal is.
I'm not sure what you are referencing, but there are good reasons why nuclear power is expensive: lots of engineering and construction hours, strick safety and quality standards for design and materials, and no externalities, since decommissioning and waste handling have to be accounted and baked into the final utility cost to consumers. In other words, even if it's difficult to pay off a nuclear power plant (in a liberalized energy market of course) it's still money well spent. The same requirements and expectations should have to apply to other industries as well.
Are you arguing its a "good thing" for existing built plants or for propose plants yet to be built? I wasn't sure, but the result is the same for both. Nuclear is too expensive for what it provides in the face of better alternatives. I'm happy to back my statements with sources. Which position were you arguing?
There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that's consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I'm not positive).
Our best outlook for the future is for us to build at least as much of these are necessary to clean up our nuclear waste.
There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that’s consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I’m not positive).
Building reactors just to reprocess fuel would be a really bad way to solve that problem. If we are requiring reprocessing, there are other countries that run these that we could just ship our fuel to.
Breeder reactors bring some serious security problems
One of the really great things about civilian nuclear power in the USA is that the fuel or waste can never be built into a nuclear bomb. Our reactors run on Uranium-238. This is the most common isotope of uranium and its plenty fissile to reach criticality for power generation. Nuclear bombs use Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239.
The way a Breeder reactor can reprocess fuel is by turning "spent" Uranium-238 into, you guessed it, Plutonium-239. Plutonium-239 can be used to generate electricity in reactors too. So now you've got civilian power plants that are housing and handling weapons grade nuclear material. The security of the facility, supply chain, workers and everything suddenly has to go through the roof. All of those things increase the total costs to the resulting electricity. With nuclear already being more expensive than other cleaner and dirtier alternatives, running Breeder reactors makes that nuclear power yet more expensive again!
Those are certainly difficulties that we'll need to address. The plutonium especially. I think we could design ways however to keep it secure. It would certainly need to be carefully designed though.
We certainly could. We do it already today in the USA with our nuclear weapons (which use Plutonium). Its all possible, its just expensive. So much so that it makes an expensive power source (nuclear) even more expensive. Why would we do this when solar costs 5 times less than regular civilian nuclear power?
There's no magic bullet to our problems. Solar has issues with storage and varies day to day with the weather. I've got no issue making it a large supply of our energy, but we'll need generation sources for cloudy days. We can't presume the battery storage will be full every time we need it and it's cloudy out.
Who's suggesting there's a magic bullet? Certainly not me.
I’ve got no issue making it a large supply of our energy, but we’ll need generation sources for cloudy days. We can’t presume the battery storage will be full every time we need it and it’s cloudy out.
My argument is that nuclear isn't it.
Fair enough -- what do you propose we use instead?
Solar PV, wind, and hydro where we can. Geothermal in the very few places we can.
My position is simply that it's a good sign if nuclear power is more expensive than other types. We should be suspicious of anything that claims to offer a better deal.
What an unusual stance. You eluded to the externalities of other sources as your concern. For coal I would agree. However, for wind and solar the studies have shown those to be substantially cheaper even with externalities factored in.
What do you base your reasoning on that wind and solar are not factoring in externalities?
My understanding is that wind and PV solar power are similar to most other industries besides nuclear power in that the management of the lifecycles of such deployments isn't well planned or funded. I myself have encountered a derelict wind farm and I have to wonder if that's just the way it's supposed to go after investors extract their short-term profits. As these renewable projects decline in performance (both in terms of actual electricity production and fictional financial viability), I guess the horizon will just keep collecting their skeletons.
This doesn't seem like a strong argument against wind that a wind farm planned for a 20 year life ran for 20 years, and was then dismantled.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I can only make some assumptions about where the gravity is for your point.
Are you arguing that a wind farm, once existing, should continue in perpetuity or not be built at all?
Are you arguing that an abandoned wind farm isn't pleasant to look at?
I'm interested in your viewpoint.
I am not arguing either of those points. My viewpoint is that we need big, expensive, state run power projects to really knock out fossil fuels rather than contriving financial products like renewable energy credits to attract private investment in PV solar and wind. I think nuclear power (and possibly concentrated solar and deep well geothermal power) is better suited to the task than PV solar and wind because they avoid the perpetual transition trap. We need hard, discrete, inalienable power facilities close by to where people live and work not just for cogeneration opportunities, but also so that the people come to see themselves as the true owners of this infrastructure. Wind farms tend to be remote, dispersed, and abstracted from the people consuming their output; therefore better suited to serve capital while never significantly threatening fossil fuel investments. It's a dead end, hence the skeletons on the horizon analogy. Perhaps it's more of an opportunity cost than an externality in the sense that we'd be leaving on the table real progress to zero-emissions by resisting nuclear power deployment in favor of plans that allow and require continued dependence on fossil fuels.
Maybe a case can be made for massive offshore wind farms for the sake of having a diverse energy mix or if there isn't a reliable supply of nuclear fuel. Otherwise, why spread out operations over thousands of square miles of ocean, accessible only by diesel powered ships, when you could have nuclear plants on shore occupying a few hundred acres, within easy reach of electrified public transit, supplying good heat and steam to homes and industry in addition to electricity? The answer would seem like some combination of nimbyism, defeatism, and subservience to fossil fuel interests.
It can also work as a source of heat for district heating or various industrial processes, and since the plants themselves have no emissions, they can be reasonably placed in cities for this purpose without harming people. Using heat directly is more efficient than converting it to and from electricity.
At the most generous calculation (of nuclear costly only $6,695) that puts nuclear power at 5 x more expensive that solar PV. So if you have a theoretical pure electricity bill on solar PV of $100/month, your theoretical pure electricity bill on nuclear of $500/month.
I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that nuclear is not significantly more expensive.
Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regulatory environment, some or all wholesale costs may be passed through to consumers. These are costs per unit of energy, typically represented as dollars/megawatt hour (wholesale). The calculations also assist governments in making decisions regarding energy policy. On average the levelized cost of electricity from utility scale solar power and onshore wind power is less than from coal and gas-fired power stations,: TS-25 but this varies a lot depending on location.: 6–65
Why? Nuclear power is the most complex and expensive option of any clean energy source from what I know.
Nuclear power is good for its consistent output that is independent of outside factors like wind, clouds, or drought. Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn't particularly expensive.
I wish that were true. Nuclear plants built in the 60s and 70s (but still operating today) was losing money in Ohio. So the power companies bribed the Republican Ohio Speaker of the House $60 million dollars to pass a law that citizens have to pay extra fees totally over $1 billion dollars to power plants so that power companies can make a profit on nuclear. The bill was passed, and signed into law by the governor of Ohio, and years passed before the investigation found the bribery scandal.
That former Ohio Speaker of the House was sentenced to 20 years in prison finally.
The bad bribed-passed law is still on the books in Ohio and citizens are still paying extra to artificially make nuclear profitable for the power company. Here's just a small source for the whole sorted story..
So no, even old built nuclear power plants are still more expensive that nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.
Besides maybe coal
They've had to keep upgrading them - the percentage of nuclear is the same, but no new plants have been built, so that extra power has come from research on how close to the red line they can actually run.
New reactors just came online in Georgia this year. A $15 billion dollar planned project that cost $30 billion with overruns.
So new or old, nuclear is really expensive electricity.
A coal power plant is rougly the same cost per GW as solar or wind, doesn't mean we should build more of them. I agree it's expensive, but so were solar and wind a couple decades ago. Government investment helped research, development, scaling up - imagine if that had been done in the '80s, we wouldn't be building natural gas plants right now.
Incorrect. Costs listed per KW of generation:
source
The first commercial nuclear power plant in the USA came online in 1958. source That's 66 years ago. If time was going to make it cheaper we would have seen that by now. Instead the most recent reactors to come online, which occurred just this year, were projected to cost $14 billion and instead are cost $31 billion! Even worst, this isn't an entirely new nuclear power plant, its just two additional reactors at an existing operational plant. source
Nuclear just costs too much for what you get at the end.
Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regulatory environment, some or all wholesale costs may be passed through to consumers. These are costs per unit of energy, typically represented as dollars/megawatt hour (wholesale). The calculations also assist governments in making decisions regarding energy policy. On average the levelized cost of electricity from utility scale solar power and onshore wind power is less than from coal and gas-fired power stations,: TS-25 but this varies a lot depending on location.: 6–65^article^ ^|^ ^about^
Ah, perhaps my source was off. Thanks for the additional data.
But looking at it another way, nuclear is less than twice coal. Estimating the cost of that georgia plant would put it at $16-17B, so those overruns would be atypical.
But my main point on cost is that government investment has been lacking in nuclear compared to renewables: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/12/27/why-is-solar-energy-getting-250-times-more-in-federal-tax-credits-than-nuclear/?sh=4a783c3221cf
Without investment, it's going to stay just as expensive. And the main regulating body not having a mandate to develop the technology has just been holding us back.
That consistent output isn't as useful as you think. Solar and wind are ridiculously cheap, so we would want to use them when they're available. That means winding down nuclear plants when those two spin up. I'm turn, that means those initial construction costs you mentioned aren't being efficiently ammortized over the entire life of the plant.
What we can do instead is take historical sun and wind data for a given region, calculate where the biggest trough will be, and then build enough storage capacity to cover it. Even better, aim for 95% coverage in the next few years, with the rest taken up by existing natural gas. There's some non-linear factors involved where getting to 100% is a lot harder than 95%.
This is the trap. The fossil fuel industry has co-opted wind and PV solar by way of filling in the gaps and transitioning to net zero emissions. Of course, the gaps will always be there and the transition will never complete and "net zero" seems to just leave the door open on fossil fuels forever.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, has the reliability that @FireTower@lemmy.world mentioned and it closes any of the gaps from wind and solar right up. You don't have to quickly cut the power on a reactor if it's sunny or windy, just divert it to hydrogen and ammonia production. Even if the efficient high temperature electrolysis tech isn't ready yet, it doesn't really matter since it's emissions free. Furthermore, nuclear power produces good heat/steam to support cogeneration and various industrial processes.
Nonsense. Conservatives have brought up nuclear for decades as a way to play "gotcha" with anti-nuclear progressives. Maggie Thatcher, for example, embraced the science of climate change early on as a way to push nuclear. It was never serious, though. Always a political game that resulted in no new nuclear being built while coal and oil continued to ramp up.
I think Thatcher just wanted to privatize, deregulate, and liberalize as much as she could, all fundamentally bad moves from the perspectives of both labor and greenhouse emissions concerns.
The problem is that there are currently no good (cheap, scalable) technologies to store these large amounts of electrical energy.
There are several lines of storage research that only need to be ramped up to mass production at this point. Since stationary storage doesn't have the weight restrictions that electric car batteries do, there are many different viable options. Flow batteries, sodium batteries, pumping water uphill, big tower of concrete blocks on pullies, hydrogen electrolysis, big ceramic block that gets hot. Some will work wherever, others are only viable in certain situations, but there are many options and we only need one of them to work at scale.
When nuclear tries to make improvements, it tends to do one thing per decade. If it fails, wait another decade to try the next thing. Last decade, it was the AP1000 reactor. It was hoped it would make a single, repeatable design that would avoid the boutique engineering that caused budget and schedule overruns in the past. Didn't work out that way. This decade, it's Small Modular Reactors. The recent collapse of the Utah project doesn't give much hope for it.
Even if it does, it won't be proven out before 2030. We'll want to be on 90% clean electrical technology by then if we have even a hope of keeping climate change at bay. There is no longer a path with nuclear that could do so. Given project construction times, the clock ran out already.
While I don't disagree that it's going to be too late, I do think SMRs are likely to go the distance, at least abroad.
The reality is that we aren't going to hit 90% carbon free by 2030 without a huge social and political shift. There's just no way that is happening in 6 years. I really hate being a downer about it but I think we need to face the facts on it.
I think most of the technologies you mention are currently still too expensive, can't be used everywhere or don't make sense to be used at a large scale. E.g. for pumped hydro you need height differences. Concrete blocks on pullies sound like you need a lot of space for only a small amount of energy (I didn't do the maths, this is just my feeling, so correct me if I'm wrong).
About nuclear energy: in the article I saw that it accounts for 18% of the US electricity production. That's half of the 40% emissions-free part. So for sure we cannot reach the targets without nuclear energy. My opinion is that we should keep using it and keep investigating it further, just as we should keep investigating new electricity storage technologies.
Some of those technologies are only awaiting mass production. Economies of scale are all that's needed, not any further breakthroughs in the lab.
The part of that carbon-free total that isn't nuclear or hydro has almost all been installed on the last decade. It got deployed fast and is only accelerating.
If every home was a battery instead of an armory that would be a really cool redundant storage infrastructure. Likely not financially viable compared to centralized storage but it would be kind of cool if their was no immediate central reliance on power so any interruption in power generation could withstand say 1 week of storage reserves nation wide before outages started trickling off to support say hospitals, heating above 40 degrees, etc. Entirely too complicated I’m sure but just a neat thought I had after reading your comment.
Even current lithium-based battery storage is already cheaper than nuclear.
It does not make sense to compare the price of energy storage (lithium batteries), with the price for generating electricity (nuclear energy), or do you mean something else?
People have a hard-on about nuclear being "baseload" power and renewables being intermittent. Solar/wind plus batteries to add dispatchability is a valid comparison to nuclear if you only want to talk about baseload.
Don't forget power companies can also work with smart thermostat manufacturers and car manufacturers to implement demand side tweaks to reduce power consumption. If they need to drop demand by some number of megawatts, they can adjust everyone's thermostate by 1 degree temporarily and easily meet that need, or slow electric car charging by half a kilowatt. As long as there's a manual override for users who need to charge right then or need to change the thermostat right then, this can easily make a significant dent in the variability of the grid with renewables
Consistent output is certainly useful when you break down demand into a constant demand + variable demand. For instance, if demand is typically 200-350 kWh, you could build a nuclear plant to generate 200 kWh and constantly run while you meet the varying 0-150 kWh demand with wind and solar.
I will agree though that we need to run numbers on this to determine the best approach. I don't have a feel for what wins out if we make larger solar and wind farms -- increased cost for the additional capacity, or increased efficiency from economies of scale.
im assuming by "winding down" you mean production of power? Not shutting down the plants, nuclear plants operate the most efficiently at high capacity factor, when they aren't producing power the fuel is still decaying, thus you should be producing power for AS LONG as possible. This is why if you ever look at capacity factor >80% is really common, i've even seen >100% a couple of times, as well as the term "baseload plant" being used almost always in reference to nuclear.
That wouldn't make sense for an existing nuclear plant, the nuclear plant should stay running in place of solar/wind. As you would be burning money actively otherwise, or you could just shut it down permanently, thats the other option.
Yes, running them at a lower level, and yes, that would be my point. You can run them down when renewable sources pick up, but that's inefficient. Solar/wind don't mix well with nuclear; you're leaving something on the table if you try.
That's not a particularly complex way of looking at it. the nuclear plant is a base load plant, meaning you can pretty much just subtract its output from the predicted consumption, and then you can simply have less renewable energy, load peaking is midday anyway, which is when solar is productive. (or have less energy storage, since the nuclear plant will combat that), you would have a more consistent and regular power production at that point, and waste less money. (since you aren't burning money on running a nuclear plant at a reduced/no output, you would technically be burning solar energy (you cant burn wind energy, you just stop the turbine, and it wont produce power) but that's cheaper anyway, and besides beyond install costs, very low continual maintenance)
Though if you were going to shutdown the nuclear plant at its EOL then you would need to increase production of renewables, which is easy enough. Saying that "nuclear and solar/wind don't mix" is just kind of weird. Realistically the only better mix would be solar/wind and gas since gas can manage peak loads super trivially, which is of course not very green. So arguably nuclear would be your ideal match unless you went explicitly solar/wind.
The storage capacity is the hard part. Batteries aren't really a viable option (we don't really have good enough batteries, limits on how many can be made with current resources, etc).
Dams would be good (pump water uphill when electricity is cheap and release when you need the energy back), but dams are not a viable option everywhere and also have a high environmental impact and are arguably not the safest thing for a community.
I read somewhere recently about the idea of putting smaller batteries in individual homes, basically distributing the power ahead of time to a certain number of places so they are not taking from the grid in peak times, but it would be hugely expensive still, and I also question if we have the ability to make so many batteries, much less get enough people to install them.
We have plenty of options. Grid storage doesn't have the same size and weight limitations that electric cars do, which opens up many more possibilities. Flow batteries are getting cranked up for mass production, and that's probably all we need. Even if that doesn't work out, there are other directions to go.
Don't leave out the deconstruction of old nuclear plants after their operational time and the storage of radioactive waste. It's very laborious and expensive.
Hydro is also quite independent but it's heavily dependent on geography. That's how Canada is able to be much ahead in renewable energy.
Also, having nuclear in a 100% low carbon grid is great to stabilize the grid.
A French study showed that having around 13% of nuclear in the grid reduce the solar and battery capacity needed by a factor of two compared to no nuclear.
Nuclear power is bad for its consistent output because demand is not constant. You could of course run some energy hungry chemical reaction when there is more power than demand, make hydrogen to use for synthetic fuels for example or build a battery to store the excess power for when the demand is high. But is is of course much cheaper with renewables.
Total demand is not constant, but you can represent total demand as a sum of a given constant demand plus variable demand. Say for instance the average demand varies from 200-350 kWh a year. You could run nuclear power plants to generate 200 kWh worth of electricity, and use solar/wind for the remaining 0-150 kWh demand. It would be fairly efficient to have nuclear provide a base load of some kind while solar and wind vary to meet the full demand.
Hydro is best as a giant battery bank, and pairs quite well with nuclear.
And yet, after many decades of solar, wind construction. It is the energy source in that pie chart that is sizeable (just as much as all wind and solar) and extremely stable (probably for the last 50 years), without any major construction in the past 30 years minimum.
Wind/solar only ramped up in the last 10 years, not decades. That's when they got cheap. Really cheap. It's nuclear that had a huge head start.
To be fair, Plant Vogtle just turned on Unit 3 earlier this year and Unit 4 should be coming soon.
modern gen 4 plants are MUCH simpler, foregoing PWR loop entirely in favor of liquid metal/salt type reactors, with various different design choices that are all much simpler, and cheaper to build/maintain.
If we see actual development in that field it's not hard to imagine them playing with the fossil fuels, possibly renewables as well given the base load productivity, and relative lack of waste.
That's a good thing. It means lots of hours of well paying engineering and construction work.
Nearly all of nuclear in the USA was built decades ago. Instead of being "paid off" and being cheaper, its still more expensive to generate electricity with nuclear than nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.
Nuclear is the most regulated one. Start requiring full recycling / disposal of solar or wind and how expensive do they get?
Nuclear is the most regulated: True. Accidents in nuclear have the most consequence, by far, of any generation source.
I would imagine that if we're just going for disposal, solar and wind are still pretty cheap. With zero recycling wind turbine blades can just be buried after their 25 year life cycle. source.
Same landfill disposal option is available for solar panels at $1 to $5 per panel. source
This would be the level of disposal nuclear has, except low and high level nuclear waste is much more costly and potentially destructive even after disposal.
Burying it in the ground with no considerations for leachants is not what nuclear disposal is.
I'm not sure what you are referencing, but there are good reasons why nuclear power is expensive: lots of engineering and construction hours, strick safety and quality standards for design and materials, and no externalities, since decommissioning and waste handling have to be accounted and baked into the final utility cost to consumers. In other words, even if it's difficult to pay off a nuclear power plant (in a liberalized energy market of course) it's still money well spent. The same requirements and expectations should have to apply to other industries as well.
Are you arguing its a "good thing" for existing built plants or for propose plants yet to be built? I wasn't sure, but the result is the same for both. Nuclear is too expensive for what it provides in the face of better alternatives. I'm happy to back my statements with sources. Which position were you arguing?
There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that's consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I'm not positive).
Our best outlook for the future is for us to build at least as much of these are necessary to clean up our nuclear waste.
Building reactors just to reprocess fuel would be a really bad way to solve that problem. If we are requiring reprocessing, there are other countries that run these that we could just ship our fuel to.
Breeder reactors bring some serious security problems
One of the really great things about civilian nuclear power in the USA is that the fuel or waste can never be built into a nuclear bomb. Our reactors run on Uranium-238. This is the most common isotope of uranium and its plenty fissile to reach criticality for power generation. Nuclear bombs use Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239.
The way a Breeder reactor can reprocess fuel is by turning "spent" Uranium-238 into, you guessed it, Plutonium-239. Plutonium-239 can be used to generate electricity in reactors too. So now you've got civilian power plants that are housing and handling weapons grade nuclear material. The security of the facility, supply chain, workers and everything suddenly has to go through the roof. All of those things increase the total costs to the resulting electricity. With nuclear already being more expensive than other cleaner and dirtier alternatives, running Breeder reactors makes that nuclear power yet more expensive again!
Those are certainly difficulties that we'll need to address. The plutonium especially. I think we could design ways however to keep it secure. It would certainly need to be carefully designed though.
We certainly could. We do it already today in the USA with our nuclear weapons (which use Plutonium). Its all possible, its just expensive. So much so that it makes an expensive power source (nuclear) even more expensive. Why would we do this when solar costs 5 times less than regular civilian nuclear power?
There's no magic bullet to our problems. Solar has issues with storage and varies day to day with the weather. I've got no issue making it a large supply of our energy, but we'll need generation sources for cloudy days. We can't presume the battery storage will be full every time we need it and it's cloudy out.
Who's suggesting there's a magic bullet? Certainly not me.
My argument is that nuclear isn't it.
Fair enough -- what do you propose we use instead?
Solar PV, wind, and hydro where we can. Geothermal in the very few places we can.
Combined cycle gas-turbine (CCGT) methane everywhere else.
My position is simply that it's a good sign if nuclear power is more expensive than other types. We should be suspicious of anything that claims to offer a better deal.
What an unusual stance. You eluded to the externalities of other sources as your concern. For coal I would agree. However, for wind and solar the studies have shown those to be substantially cheaper even with externalities factored in.
What do you base your reasoning on that wind and solar are not factoring in externalities?
My understanding is that wind and PV solar power are similar to most other industries besides nuclear power in that the management of the lifecycles of such deployments isn't well planned or funded. I myself have encountered a derelict wind farm and I have to wonder if that's just the way it's supposed to go after investors extract their short-term profits. As these renewable projects decline in performance (both in terms of actual electricity production and fictional financial viability), I guess the horizon will just keep collecting their skeletons.
This doesn't seem like a strong argument against wind that a wind farm planned for a 20 year life ran for 20 years, and was then dismantled.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I can only make some assumptions about where the gravity is for your point.
I'm interested in your viewpoint.
I am not arguing either of those points. My viewpoint is that we need big, expensive, state run power projects to really knock out fossil fuels rather than contriving financial products like renewable energy credits to attract private investment in PV solar and wind. I think nuclear power (and possibly concentrated solar and deep well geothermal power) is better suited to the task than PV solar and wind because they avoid the perpetual transition trap. We need hard, discrete, inalienable power facilities close by to where people live and work not just for cogeneration opportunities, but also so that the people come to see themselves as the true owners of this infrastructure. Wind farms tend to be remote, dispersed, and abstracted from the people consuming their output; therefore better suited to serve capital while never significantly threatening fossil fuel investments. It's a dead end, hence the skeletons on the horizon analogy. Perhaps it's more of an opportunity cost than an externality in the sense that we'd be leaving on the table real progress to zero-emissions by resisting nuclear power deployment in favor of plans that allow and require continued dependence on fossil fuels.
Maybe a case can be made for massive offshore wind farms for the sake of having a diverse energy mix or if there isn't a reliable supply of nuclear fuel. Otherwise, why spread out operations over thousands of square miles of ocean, accessible only by diesel powered ships, when you could have nuclear plants on shore occupying a few hundred acres, within easy reach of electrified public transit, supplying good heat and steam to homes and industry in addition to electricity? The answer would seem like some combination of nimbyism, defeatism, and subservience to fossil fuel interests.
It's not significantly more expensive though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
And even if it was, it has other benefits.
Like using significantly less land, and being safer.
It can also work as a source of heat for district heating or various industrial processes, and since the plants themselves have no emissions, they can be reasonably placed in cities for this purpose without harming people. Using heat directly is more efficient than converting it to and from electricity.
Nuclear has it's place.
I'm looking at that source it shows:
At the most generous calculation (of nuclear costly only $6,695) that puts nuclear power at 5 x more expensive that solar PV. So if you have a theoretical pure electricity bill on solar PV of $100/month, your theoretical pure electricity bill on nuclear of $500/month.
I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that nuclear is not significantly more expensive.
Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regulatory environment, some or all wholesale costs may be passed through to consumers. These are costs per unit of energy, typically represented as dollars/megawatt hour (wholesale). The calculations also assist governments in making decisions regarding energy policy. On average the levelized cost of electricity from utility scale solar power and onshore wind power is less than from coal and gas-fired power stations,: TS-25 but this varies a lot depending on location.: 6–65^article^ ^|^ ^about^