Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Technology

Nuclear Energy Too Slow, Too Expensive To Save Climate, Says Report (reuters.com) 409

dryriver shares a report from Reuters: Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said. In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed. "Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow," said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the report. "It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster."

The report estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years. The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit CO2 while awaiting substitution. "To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time," Schneider said. The WNA said in an emailed statement that studies have shown that nuclear energy has a proven track record in providing new generation faster than other low-carbon options, and added that in many countries nuclear generation provides on average more low-carbon power per year than solar or wind. It said that reactor construction times can be as short as four years when several reactors are built in sequence.
According to the report, the cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per MWh, while onshore wind power comes in at $29-$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.

"Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs -- which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output -- for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%," reports Reuters. "For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuclear Energy Too Slow, Too Expensive To Save Climate, Says Report

Comments Filter:
  • by Wizardess ( 888790 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:06AM (#59232898)

    Ya know, if you never ever try you never ever succeed. Perhaps we should start building and hope for the best rather than shrug and say it'll never work and do nothing.

    (Of course, that presumes it is an attempt to solve a real problem mankind has even a vague prayer of doing something about.)
    {o.o}

    • by Sique ( 173459 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:30AM (#59232944) Homepage
      There are nuclear reactors built everywhere in the world. So we actually try. The numbers the WNISR is publishing are not pulled out of thin air, they come from real world experiences like Hinkley Point C (UK) and Olkiluoto (FIN).
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by segedunum ( 883035 )
        No we have not tried, and I'm afraid 'reports' like this are not going to make 'renewables' replace the vast amount of power generated from coal and gas power stations, particularly in the far east. We are serious about reducing emissions, generating the vast amounts of constant power needed to drive electric cars and take care of 'climate change', are we not?
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          China leads the world in on-shore wind deployment and heat peak coal 5-6 years ago. The reduction in coal is in part due to the availability of renewables, and in part due to old coal plants being replaced with more efficient ones.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        Yeah, they make estimates based on some of the highest regulated places in the world. I'm surprised they could even build a nuclear reactor at all in the EU.

        The problem with nuclear is not its base cost, it's the regulation and NIMBY crowd that makes it very difficult. You also notice that in most of these reports, the actual production, space and lifecycle costs of are not included and simply take the values based on massive government intervention in both directions.

        If we had "the government" funding nucl

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @08:40AM (#59233770) Homepage Journal

      "Ya know, if you never ever try you never ever succeed. Perhaps we should start building and hope for the best rather than shrug and say it'll never work and do nothing."

      No, that would be very stupid. We keep doing studies and they keep saying nuclear doesn't make sense for a broad variety of reasons, including but not limited to initial costs, maintenance costs, fueling costs, refueling costs, decommissioning costs, site cleanup costs, waste handling, waste storage which is by the way still an unsolved problem, site protection, supply chain management, strip mining for fuel, the fact that there is not enough accessible fuel to replace our fossil fuel use with nuclear...

      The urge to "do something" is self-destructive when not tempered with the wisdom to avoid doing things we KNOW won't work, let alone those things which almost certainly won't work. We've run the numbers time and again and this report only confirms what we already knew: nuclear power only ultimately benefits those who profit from its production. Everyone else would better be served with some other solution.

      "Of course, that presumes it is an attempt to solve a real problem mankind has even a vague prayer of doing something about."

      Science not only says that nuclear power is dumb, it also says that AGW is real. Why do you hate science?

    • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      Ya know, if you never ever try you never ever succeed.

      The Nuclear Industry has been trying for 50 years. It's revealed a lot of problems that are yet to be solved so stepping back from Nuclear whilst we sort out its issues is probably a good way to get a better understanding of the technology.

  • So we (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 )
    Buy into new extra big battery packs?
    Wind power that fails when the wind is too low, fast? No wind for hours?
    Solar that fails every night?
    Pump some hydro? Every nation has the water and hills for that :)
    Only do productive work during the day?
    Import gas? Make more gas?
    Stop jobs, growth and industry to use less and less power?
    Stabilizing the climate is not urgent.
    Stabilizing every advanced nations power grid is urgent after they try too much wind and solar.
    Hydrogen every night?
    • Re:So we (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @06:06AM (#59233332)
      Lots of sentence fragments.
      No complete ideas.
      No research.
      Maybe do some reading?
  • by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:12AM (#59232912)
    The moral of the story: buy reactors from Russia. Rosatom manages to build them on time and within the budget. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    Don't buy reactors from the US, as the US has lost engineering capability to build them.
    • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:51AM (#59232982)

      Yeah, much like India manages to build cars [wikipedia.org] on time and within a budget.

      Which is great, until you have a problem [theguardian.com].

      It's kinda like this [wikipedia.org] with Russian nuke plants.

      • by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:54AM (#59232988)
        Sure. The worst possible disaster ended with less lives lost than during the Bhopal incident. And the area around Chernobyl is now basically a wildlife preserve.

        Never mind that the new reactors simply can not fail in the way Chernobyl reactor failed.
        • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @03:11AM (#59233040)

          Well, if you want to create wildlife preserves, you can do that a lot cheaper than building a nuke plant and let it cook off, ya know?

        • Never mind that the new reactors simply can not fail in the way Chernobyl reactor failed.

          How many reactors are still around that could fail catastrophically (not necessarily exactly like Chernobyl), and what should we do about them ?

          • by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseerNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @05:03AM (#59233194)

            How many reactors are still around that could fail catastrophically (not necessarily exactly like Chernobyl),

            Zero.

            and what should we do about them ?

            We should have a plan to keep them operating safely and profitably for as long as we can. Since a large majority of the world's fleet of nuclear power plants were built decades ago then we must also have a plan for replacing these nuclear power plants for when they do reach the end of their operational life.

            There's been a lot of work in improving the survivability of a nuclear power plant against natural events and human error. This is expressed as "core damage frequency".
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            Core damage frequency is not a measure of some kind of Chernobyl style event, although that would certainly be included. In this context "core damage" is something where there is a potential for radiation release, only severe events would mean radioactive material actually escapes containment.

            A 2003 study commissioned by the European Commission remarked that "core damage frequencies of 5 Ã-- 10â'5 [per reactor-year] are a common result" or in other words, one core damage incident in 20,000 reactor years.[3] A 2008 study performed by the Electric Power Research Institute, the estimated core damage frequency for the United States nuclear industry is estimated at once in 50,000 reactor years, or 2 Ã-- 10â'5.[5]

            Assuming there are 500 reactors in use in the world, the above CDF estimates mean that, statistically, one core damage incident would be expected to occur somewhere in the world every 40 years for the 2003 European Commission estimated average accident rate or every 100 years for the 2008 Electric Power Research Institute estimated average accident rate.

            In the USA we have about 100 nuclear power reactors that provide about 20% of our electricity. That assumption used of having 500 nuclear power reactors means the potential for 100% of our electricity from nuclear power. That's not likely to be practical to get 100% of our electricity from nuclear power but nuclear power plants have uses beyond electricity production, one often proposed use is desalinating water to provide drinking water for large coastal cities.

            A "core damage incident" would be something like at Three Mile Island, where the reactor is considered a total loss but there was little or no radiation released and no one injured or killed.

      • Yes point to Chernobyl. A reactor design that was obsolescent and had not been used in new reactors for some time before the disaster. Just because the Soviets built a shoddy reactor and disabled the safeties before running a stress test on that shoddy reactor thus causing the disaster does not mean Russian engineering is by default all equally shoddy. Russian engineering is not Indian Engineering. India's cars are irrelevant.

        Modern reactor designs, including those build by Russia as referenced above, can
        • by BlueStrat ( 756137 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @04:15AM (#59233128)

          Modern reactor designs, including those build by Russia as referenced above, cannot melt down or explode. If they fail, they simply shut down, they cannot sustain a reaction let alone a run-away reaction as needed for a Chernobyl or Fukushima style disaster.

          But they've all got radioactive materials that emit radiation!

          Can't you see!? They're trying to turn the freakin' frogs gay!! Aaaaaarrrggghhh! [rips shirt]

          Oops, sorry! Channeled from the crackpot column on the right, not the left. My B.

          The real reason there is so much opposition to nuclear (not talking about the useful idiots that repeat canned propaganda talking points like NPCs) is because first, cheap electricity will hurt a lot of long established moneyed interests and hinder using high priced electricity as a control on the economy, secondly, there is real fear that cheap electricity in the US would kick the US economy into hyperdrive threatening our foreign competitors and opponents, while also benefiting average people tremendously and thereby empower them and make them less reliant on government. How well can controlling the masses with entitlement programs and a welfare state work if only a few actually need such programs? Money and control.

          Strat

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bluegutang ( 2814641 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:15AM (#59232918)

    France managed to convert the large majority of its electricity production to nuclear in just 15 years [wikipedia.org]. Why can't we do the same thing now? Are we stupider than French people in the 70s-80s were?

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:20AM (#59232928) Homepage

      No, you just have a lot more NIMBYs.

    • by thesupraman ( 179040 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:31AM (#59232946)

      First, every local pressure group, regulatory agency, and bureaucrat in the area will dig DEEPLY into the budget to squeeze out every dollar they can.
      Then everyone who hates nuclear power will do their best to tie the project up in legal battles for ever.
      And lastly you will then compete against other power sources that gave every growing subsidies to help them.

      Hell, if the amount of radiation waste was directly charged against power stations - coal would be out of business overnight, as it produces about 100 TIMES the total radiation from its waste..

      If energy sources were penalty taxed in proportion to related fatalities each year, then nuclear would be flying high.

      But no, there seems to be no escaping the effect of the 'duck and cover' paranoia drilled into everyone during the cold war, that nuclear = whole cities or mutant zombies killing babies because the Russians are evil.

      ANYONE who says that AGW is a critical problem, but does not say that nuclear is a critical SOLUTION is either incapable of basic critical thinking, or has a personal vested interest in something else.

      • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

        ANYONE who says that AGW is a critical problem, but does not say that nuclear is a critical SOLUTION is either incapable of basic critical thinking, or has a personal vested interest in something else.

        ... or thinks that a solution is only feasible if it's in concert with market forces and free market economics -- and sees that Nuclear hasn't in all its years managed to produce the economic returns that investors want to see. Now I know that government prop up some other industries with perpetual subsidies where the free market doesn't invest enough, e.g. the military and national rail networks. I have a hard time evaluating which things should get perpetual subsidies and which shouldn't. But no area feel

      • Nuclear is great, until:

        #1 The unexpected happens, earthquake, tsunami, terrorist attack, sabotage... and everything goes to shit.

        #2 An old plant has to be decommissioned, and the energy companies no longer feel responsible for the radioactive pile of junk and offload the enormous cost of dismantling to the taxpayer [spiegel.de].

        But it is really profitable for the utility companies to build and operate them, yes.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @05:29AM (#59233250) Homepage Journal

        What about Hinkley C then?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        The only legal challenge was from the Irish complaining that the vast subsidies given to the plant amounted to state aid, and that was resolved within a few months.

        No other lawsuits. No protests. No NIMBYs since the site was already in use as a nuclear power station. Planning approval quickly rubber stamped by the government.

        What fucked it was the cost. Initial estimate was £24/MHh. By the time the contract was awarded that had gone up to £96/MWh, increasing with inflation and guaranteed for the life of the plant, and the only remaining bidder (EDF) still wasn't sure they wanted to build it. It took Chinese investment to get it off the ground.

        Seems like nuclear power is expensive enough by itself without the need for the all powerful NIMBYs and environmental activists getting involved.

    • Probably because building nukes the same way nowaydays would be illegal. And for a good reason.

      • Why should it be illegal? It's safer than any other power source [ourworldindata.org].

        • by VMaN ( 164134 )

          It seems like you've linked to a page comparing it to other non-renewable energy sources instead of "any other power source".

        • If we calculate safety not in terms of people dying, but in terms of reactor-years per meltdown (or other catastrophic event of similar scale), how many reactor-years per incident would you consider acceptable ? How many reactor-years do you estimate the average person would find acceptable ? And what number is realistic based on various currently operating designs ?

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:55AM (#59232992)

      Are we stupider than French people in the 70s-80s were?

      Dude, even the French are stupider than they were in the 70s and 80s. The whole world has gone bananas, and as in all other things the US is the world leader.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )

      If you are still pushing for more nuclear power plants in the face of new data suggesting other methods are giving a quicker return, then yes, you are stupider than French people in the 70's-80's were.

      • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @04:13AM (#59233124)

        in the face of new data

        The supposed "data" we have here is highly suspect. This "World Nuclear Industry Status Report" is produced by Mycle Schneider, a professional anti nuclear activist [wikipedia.org].

        It's bullshit IOW.

        There is no technical reason a reactor need take 10-15 years to construct. If half the urgency and support given to wind/solar were available to nuclear all of the major industrial economies of the world could look like France, a nation with very low carbon emissions and cheap, reliable power. The CO2 and ocean acidification problems would be solved. Ontario is another excellent example.

        It's not about actually "saving" the climate. The supposed climate savers are selective in their targets, ignoring huge emitters and opposing highly successful, cost effective solutions. A world of abundant, clean power at low cost has no appeal to these people; they want scarcity. Scarcity in all things.

        I don't care anymore. I'm independent enough now that I don't need to worry about you and whatever stupid policies your endless peacetime anxieties have you supporting. Self inflict all the energy poverty you wish.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      According to the report, 15 years or even 10 years is too slow. Of course in reality that's not too slow; we are simply too late. Because we have refused to admit for the past two decades or so that nuclear power is a great option to reduce CO2. Besides, a lot of the 10 years (and money) needed to build a nuclear plant is red tape. With a;; the rules and regulations these days, it takes 4-5 years to build a house in this country. The recently completed last couple of km stretch of the A4 between Rotterd
  • Why construction contracts don't have late penalties built into them?

    The companies building reactor sites always seem to want more money and more time...

    And what about some changes in regulatory oversight? There also seem to be a large amount of palms waiting to be greased to approve sometimes simple things.

    That being said, probably the biggest thing missing from the headline is the word "Current Designs" and current technology. I think the local reactor here is 50 or 60 years old at this point in time.

    Buil

    • If the construction company has to eat the full loss for a late project, it's probably cheaper for them to just abandon the project. Have the shell company declare bankruptcy and leave a half finished reactor laying about. It's usually better for everyone if you pay them to finish it.
    • Maybe limit lawsuits after the project has been approved? That seems to be a big part of it - construction begins, a zillion lawsuits are filed by activists (many of whom perversely believe they are protecting the environment), construction is repeatedly held up and expenses are increased as changes are forced to placate plaintiffs who won't be satisfied, and the utility behind the project is between a rock and a hard place because they have to build the plant but costs have been magnified by the lawsuits
  • by ChromeAeonuim ( 1026946 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:27AM (#59232936)
    I can't wait to see this headline again in 20 years, with comments saying 'Maybe we should have started 20 years ago but it's too late now.'
  • Trying to build all these TerraWatt powerplants just didn't bring the economics of scale advantages that were promised.
    We should have put way more effort into large amounts of small manageable reactors.

  • Increasing the number of nuclear powerplants would be a major undertaking. The industry is sized for the current market, and there are some unique items that are already difficult to source [slashdot.org], like the reactor vessel: only a few companies are capable of producing them, and they take a long time to build so the worldwide production is limited. A crash program to build nuclear reactors would have to start by expanding industries like these.

  • by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:34AM (#59232956)

    You might give the blindseer a heart attack.

    • by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseerNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @03:27AM (#59233062)

      You might give the blindseer a heart attack.

      No, I'm just laughing to myself at the hysteria of it all. This hysteria is built upon a bunch of lies. The truth will come out in the end.

      They say that it takes at least ten years to build a nuclear power plant? I've seen how quickly they can go up if there's enough motivation. The US military has built nuclear power plants in 18 months. When the rush for nuclear power was in full swing a civilian nuclear power plant could go from ground breaking to putting power on the grid in three years, give or take a few months.

      There's nothing to get worried about. We got this. I thought Scott Adams spelled it out well on his blog.
      https://www.scottadamssays.com... [scottadamssays.com]

      Here's just one thing among many that I find amusing about this, nearly everyone is looking to the government to solve this problem. When has the government solved any problem? The solution will come from the private sector. There's a lot of money that can be made in solving this problem. The first one to prove all those lies wrong will be a very wealthy person.

      • Indeed. Are we serious about tackling 'climate change' or not? Regardless of what you believe regarding climate change, we are going to need to generate a great deal more power than we are now while doing it with zero emissions. Or is all this just dick waving to try and save 'renewables' that are never going to deliver that?
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        When the rush for nuclear power was in full swing a civilian nuclear power plant could go from ground breaking to putting power on the grid in three years, give or take a few months.

        Why is that though? Let's look at the data: http://euanmearns.com/how-long... [euanmearns.com]

        Turns out there is no correlation between age and built time, i.e. things were not better in the past. And in fact countries with less regulation don't do any better, they have as many problem reactors that take a long time to build as the OECD countries.

        And all that despite the fact that modern designs are actually somewhat safe. All the ones built in 3 years have had extensive safety upgrades since.

      • by DogDude ( 805747 )
        When has the government solved any problem? ... the poster writes using government provided power on a government created Internet.

        This sort of anti-government silliness really just throws anything else you might have to say in doubt, don't you know?
  • I can think of one (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joolz50 ( 1381499 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @03:15AM (#59233046)
    "It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster."

    Nuclear works at night, and when the wind stops blowing.
    • works at night, and when the wind stops blowing

      as does hydro to (and in turn, it can be switched off and its lake left to slowly fil back up when sun shine is back and wind blows again)
      also solar works when the winds stop blowing
      and wind still works at night

      I am not saying that I'm against nuclear (I am not), just pointing out that investing in a as diverse energy mix as possible helps smoothing out the problems of every single one.

      follow that idea, investing in renewable in the same time as nukes, would help smoothing out the slow deployment problem, a

  • To speak in the words of the great Vincent Hanna: "Well, I am over-f*cking-welmed.".

    Nuclear Fission isn't cost effective. The Germans notices this when they stopped the Fast-Breeding-Reactor at Kalkar and replenishing plant Wackersdorf. back in the 80ies and early 90ies. Those weren't put down by a decade of "Tree-huggers" protesting, but finally by some beancounter sitting down, sharpening his pencil and doing the math and noticing that the numbers simply don't add up.

    Nuclear Fission as we know it today is

    • by Sumguy2436 ( 6186944 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @07:04AM (#59233472)

      That is not correct. Nuclear energy in Germany was put down because of the Greens, i.e. tree-hugging eco warrior types.

      I grew up around that time in Germany. There were plenty of protests. You couldn't go anywhere without graffitis, stickers and posters from the Greens about nuclear power littering every public place.

      Our whole energy policy was and still is focused on feel-good eco activism above all else.

    • by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @07:20AM (#59233500)
      Are they a greater "eco-liability" than fossil fuels? Because that's a hard "no". Why don't the numbers add up? Because those tree-huggers have artificially increased costs. For some, fear of climate change clearly pales in comparison to the fear of nuclear. Had that not been the case, we could have replaced the bulk of fossil fuel plants decades ago.

      How much better off would we be regarding CO2 emissions today if that had happened?

  • No worries, child. We got this.

    https://www.scottadamssays.com... [scottadamssays.com]

  • "Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs -- which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output"

    Did they include the costs of stocking and guarding the remains and the ashes for 184000 years?

    • "Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs -- which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output"

      Did they include the costs of stocking and guarding the remains and the ashes for 184000 years?

      In view of the rest of that sentence:

      for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%," reports Reuters. "For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.

      Does it matter? ... and if they didn't it's just going to make nuclear look worse.

  • From the outset, nuclear reactors were about refining weapons-grade uranium. The first reactors never generated a single watt of electricity, they actually burned up a shit-ton on electricity on trying to keep the reactors cool. Promises of cheap electricity were a smoke-screen & a lie to get public support for the cold-war nuclear arms race. It's also why western governments are so opposed to the Iranian nuclear energy programme but they can't admit that publicly because it would expose the lie about t

  • by ScienceBard ( 4995157 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @05:04AM (#59233196)

    "The World Nuclear Industry Status Report is a yearly report that explores the global challenges facing the nuclear power industry. It is produced by Mycle Schneider, a professional anti nuclear activist, and gives a detailed overview of the global nuclear industry and special analysis on key events and trends." -Wikipedia.

    Sigh. The old vanguard of anti-nuke hippies is at it again. The numbers in that report are intentional distortions. Comparing a solar panel without storage in optimal conditions to a hypothetical nuclear plant is nonsense. I usually just gloss over this nonsense, but I'm grumpy this morning.

    Show me numbers of what it would cost to power the whole of the US on renewable over the next hundred years versus nuclear, including full battery storage and replacement/maintenance costs. Keep in mind the existing nuclear fleet is likely to run 80 years (smaller older single reactors excluded), and an honest evaluation would likely put the lifetime of a plant at 100 years or more in terms of physical capability (in contrast to the bullshit 40 years most anti-nukes will quote). Use costs that reflect economy of scale on nukes, instead of falsely asserting that the few reactors in the US kicked off in the last decade are reflective of the cost of every nuke that will ever be built (they were always intended as loss leaders to re-grow the US construction expertise to build reactors, as the specifications are too exacting for "normal" construction techniques). If you aren't going to allow natural gas or nuclear to exist on an all renewable grid, you need to factor in the additional margin needed to survive disasters in your less diverse grid. What if a volcano on the west coast erupts again and reduces solar output by X% for an extended period? How much more margin do you need to cover it? If that doesn't sound fair, remember that the high cost of nuclear explicitly factors in those kinds of disasters and then some.

    I can tell you flatly that the target generation cost in the southeast currently for nuclear is $25/mwh. It isn't quite there yet, but it's getting close. That does not factor in sunk capital costs over plant lifetime, but it does factor in major maintenance. I would be incredibly interested in an honest assessment of renewable with battery storage, but I haven't seen one. I really worry that the public is being sold a false bill of goods with the current renewable push, and the damage to society could be vast and last lifetimes. Renewables absolutely make sense regionally, and with a few decades of building out HVDC transmission and advancements in battery storage that reduce the amount of rare-earths required renewables may very well be the only things that make sense to build (outside of grid robustness... there is a very serious argument for paying a little more for electricity to have a lifeline in the volcano-type scenarios). But none of the honest numbers pan out on paper right now for building only renewables... which is why natural gas is largely displacing coal.

    Renewables are living in the margins of most grid operators, because they're still such a small portion of generation overall that any given utility or RTO can just buy "dirty" power to cover for renewables when they have issues. That only works when a small portion of your wider grid infrastructure is renewable (excluding very specific exceptions, like parts of northern Europe). Past a certain percentage of renewables on the grid, you either have to have coupled battery storage systems or you have to have a massive overcapacity of renewables (wind/tidal). We're rapidly creeping up on the point when renewables are going to have to stand on their own two feet without baseload propping them up (or with the additional cost of a coupled peaking natural gas generation facility weighed in). It's time to start talking honestly about what those costs look like without subsidies, and whether we want the reliability of nuclear to be a part of that mix.

    The serious climate change scholars I've seen pretty much all agree nuclear plays some part in the next hundred years of generation to meet climate targets, if only in a subsidized maintenance mode. Before you read crap like this and fall for it, you should ask yourself why that is.

  • by archer, the ( 887288 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @07:01AM (#59233462)
    Those are just the base costs per MWh, however. We still need to add in the extras to create a high probability of 24x7 service, which means building storage. It also means over-building wind and solar so that the storage can be fully recharged while also supplying the full demand of the grid. If one only built solar and Li-ion storage, it'd be about $200/MWh total. (The solar in that would last twice as long as the batteries, so I only used half the cost for the solar, with solar cost being $/KW of utility-level installation.) There'd be tons of extra electricity spring/summer/fall -- useful for CCS or biofuels -- but it would barely meet the heating demand in the middle of winter. It would also require cleaning off the panels after every snow storm. I don't know enough about wind to make an estimate involving wind, specifically how much the two would complement each other. E.g., how much wind should one expect when the sun isn't shining.

    At that point, it's not obvious whether nuclear is significantly worse, assuming USians could build a reactor as if their lives depended on it, as opposed to feeling the need for greed.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @09:57AM (#59234054)

    Building out the equivalent solar or wind power to even a single nuclear pant is WAY slower.

    Once again, if you don't support nuclear energy you don't really care about the climate, or Earth for that matter. Nuclear energy is magical gift from the cosmos and to ignore it is as spiteful as it is stupid.

  • by DarthVain ( 724186 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @10:09AM (#59234100)

    Sigh.

    What a bunch of BS. It has long been understood that renewables are not suitable for base load. The sun is not always shining, the wind, not always blowing, Geo is too small and too unique, Hydro has largely been already exploited, Tidal has promise but has a lot of maintenance issues, bio too small. There are only so many suitable storage options, and reservoirs like hydro are similarly pretty tapped out. You are not going to store many multiple GW of energy in batteries.

    That leaves Coal, Gas, Oil, and Nuclear for base. Pick one. Now pick one that doesn't emit CO2. Guess what's left?

  • It's called David MacKay: A reality check on renewables.

    The point made is an important one regarding renewables: if we were to be entirely wind or solar powered, say, how large an area would the wind turbines or solar farms take up? Nuclear has an important feature that it provides a large amount of power from a small area of land (small by comparison).

You can be replaced by this computer.

Working...