|
Grace Baiting posted:As an exec in this nuclear future, you may still be still lowercase-i important, but your job is of far more limited scope -- you are the steward of a required utility, and an integral piece of numerous facets of public life and modern technology, but no longer the Prime Mover who sets the world in motion. Nuclear is an investment with an absolutely ironclad guaranteed return. You generate power, you mark it up, and you sell it to the public, and the government guarantees that profit. If costs go up, you can raise prices to maintain your profit. But of course, nuclear is so stable and so long term and so predictable, you're not ever going to get the chance to raise prices, you just get your guaranteed monopoly profits. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have huge volatility in their fuel costs and infrastructure costs. There is a global market, and refineries are buying and selling on a global market on the crude oil/gas end AND on the refined product end. The plants compete with each other and price their rates as competitively (and price-gougingly) as possible as demand rises and falls. The marketplace changes quickly, which means the utility companies can change their prices and have more opportunities to gently caress with the books and capture more profit than the government utility commissions allow. They can raise their rates when the market heats up (with government approval) to maintain their profits, and then never lower them when the market cools down again. It's set up so every step of the way, they can do arbitrage and capture more profit than the government rates promise. Nuclear doesn't have room for that fuckery, and the only space there is room for fuckery is with the stuff that they did in SONGS - trying to get utility commission approval to pass improvement/retrofit costs on to consumers, and then bait and switch the improvements to steal the money.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have huge volatility in their fuel costs and infrastructure costs. There is a global market, and refineries are buying and selling on a global market on the crude oil/gas end AND on the refined product end. The plants compete with each other and price their rates as competitively (and price-gougingly) as possible as demand rises and falls. The marketplace changes quickly, which means the utility companies can change their prices and have more opportunities to gently caress with the books and capture more profit than the government utility commissions allow. They can raise their rates when the market heats up (with government approval) to maintain their profits, and then never lower them when the market cools down again. It's set up so every step of the way, they can do arbitrage and capture more profit than the government rates promise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Nuclear is an investment with an absolutely ironclad guaranteed return. You generate power, you mark it up, and you sell it to the public, and the government guarantees that profit. If costs go up, you can raise prices to maintain your profit. But of course, nuclear is so stable and so long term and so predictable, you're not ever going to get the chance to raise prices, you just get your guaranteed monopoly profits. Don't nuclear plants have to bid their power into a market?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 06:57
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Don't nuclear plants have to bid their power into a market? spf3million posted:Refineries - and the entire oil side of O&G - aren't utilities. Nuclear doesn't have such a chaotic bunch of inputs, so it doesn't have nearly the opportunity for the graft that's the real profit center of a utility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
Much of this thread is operating under a false premise. Most posters talk about how nuclear is more expensive than fossil, but say it's worth it because nuclear won't destroy the planet; but only the second half is true. In the 70s, nuclear was eating fossil's lunch - not only was it a clean energy source, it was cheaper to operate and produced cheaper electricity. http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html (yes I am going to keep linking this damned website forever. Look, it's got graphs!) France's nuclear fleet produces cheaper electricity now than fossil does. So what we should be saying is not, "Nuclear is expensive but worth it," but rather, "What went wrong and drove up costs?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 10:25
|
|
|
Nuclear energy's problem is and continues to be energy markets. Its inability to flexibly accommodate demand cycles means it loses out to most other forms of energy generation when it comes to generating the only thing that really matters in a market, creating profitable revenue. Hydro, gas and renewables all decrease the profitability of nuclear power, at lower financial risk. As long as you have energy markets rather than energy planning this will not change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 10:46
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:My point is that utilities get to raise their rates as soon as their profit margins, real or imagined are impacted. There are a lot of factors like refined fuel prices that can be easily cherry picked to justify raising prices, which they never need to drop again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Its inability to flexibly accommodate demand cycles That is not a thing. https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That is not a thing. Yeah I honestly don't know what he meant by that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:My point is that utilities get to raise their rates as soon as their profit margins, real or imagined are impacted. There are a lot of factors like refined fuel prices that can be easily cherry picked to justify raising prices, which they never need to drop again. This isn’t true for generation in the North East, Midwest, Texas, or California. Generators don’t get to set their prices. The companies that buy wholesale power manage the distribution are the ones that have the guaranteed monopoly in these regions, but that also doesn’t guarantee profit (see PG&E). Nuclear is too much of a gamble in these regions as the actual payback depends on how the market performs for the next 30 years. Especially since solar and wind are continuing to deploy at ever increasing rates. How is a nuclear power plant operator going to handle a grid that at times has zero or even negative load due to high rooftop solar penetration? Will the future grid support a generation technology that loses lots of money when not at full power due to the large capital costs? Even ignoring all other large cost drivers that make nuclear a bad prospect in the US, the economic uncertainty alone is enough to make it hard for private companies to develop. Phanatic posted:That is not a thing. It absolutely is a thing, you are mixing up load following with demand cycles. Demand cycles are economic shifts in the supply/demand balance for electricity that changes the profit of generation. Nuclear with large capital costs and decade long deployment cannot quickly meet changes in the power generation markets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
That's just another way of saying that nuclear plants are expensive to build because they are routinely obstructed and their competitors are subsidized. Which is exactly what we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't really believe the thread thesis which is that world governments, energy companies, and environmentalists (lol) conspired to not exclusively power the world with nuclear energy, and that nuclear power is a perfect technology which cannot fail, it can only be failed. They did. In the 1970s-1980s you had massive backlash to Nuclear Power. It's been opposed by Republicans due largely due to their instance with markets and their relationships with the Fossil Fuel Industry. Democrats from Harry Reid blocking Yucca Mountain to even Obama have chose Natural Gas over Nuclear. If you still don't believe me go look at the content that Greenpeace and The Sierra Club put in the in the late 1980s. They hated coal for good reasons but also Nuclear and supported Natural Gas! In a perfect world. We should have replaced everything we could have with Nuclear Power just like France but we didn't because Nuclear Power has it's issues due to safety and needs enormous amount of upfront investment. There's also the issue of politics as no one wants a Nuclear Power Plant in the backyard expect for weirdos like myself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's just another way of saying that nuclear plants are expensive to build because they are routinely obstructed and their competitors are subsidized. Which is exactly what we're talking about. Natural Gas is still much less complex than Nuclear Power even if you discount political concerns. Nuclear Power is going to need serious support from the government no matter what even if you removed all of the Oil and Gas subsides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's just another way of saying that nuclear plants are expensive to build because they are routinely obstructed and their competitors are subsidized. Which is exactly what we're talking about. Exactly this. France built out its nuclear industry and its 60's designed plants are chopping up hydrocarbon (and lets be real, non-hyrdo renewable is only making an impact because the French specifically said it was tossing economics aside to pursue renewables) generation to this day. To this very year, Greenpeace, that great savior of the environment, that paragon of helping us help the world to help us, is still driving up power costs of the cleanest non-hydro power country in Europe if not the world. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2022/03/31/greenpeace-france-occupies-nuclear-site/ Sorry people, it is not the few dozen O&G villains that are the reason nuclear is not powering today. But misguided activists and the green movement that has been right when it has been like a stopped clock because they think (and agitate) with emotion rather than science. Just like Fox news climate denialists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Also "it's not worth installing nuclear plants because we might not be able to use all that power and won't be able to make money" is not an actual thing, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Sorry people, it is not the few dozen O&G villains that are the reason nuclear is not powering today. But misguided activists and the green movement that has been right when it has been like a stopped clock because they think (and agitate) with emotion rather than science. Just like Fox news climate denialists. Yeah let's just act like these are separable. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Yeah let's just act like these are separable. The point is, is that if you hint at hating on Greenpeace or The Australian Greens for how much damage they are wantonly doing to the world climate, you will not be invited to parties. You go along and say gently caress yeah! gently caress Chevron, the greens have the right idea to hate on Chevron and they are always right, what else are Greenpeace doing? Hating on nuclear? well yeah Greenpeace are right because we all hate Chevron so gently caress nuclear too! TLDR; until the green movement supports nuclear - one of the most singly technically/economically (not socially) easiest and biggest bang for buck things we could do for climate change is not happening. Of course there is plenty of other things that need to happen but we're talking things that could have been done 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
have you considered that the oil and gas industry astroturfs the ever loving poo poo out of opposition to nuclear while also defacto setting energy policy in the US since they own approximately 93% of politicians in America
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:have you considered that the oil and gas industry astroturfs the ever loving poo poo out of opposition to nuclear while also defacto setting energy policy in the US since they own approximately 93% of politicians in America That is just cope. Hedge funds and big/old money investors dwarf the O&G decision makers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's just another way of saying that nuclear plants are expensive to build because they are routinely obstructed and their competitors are subsidized. Which is exactly what we're talking about. No it isn’t. The power market can fluctuate dramatically over a few days. If you magic wand away all regulation and have a company complete control over siting, nuclear power plants would still have difficulty getting financing due to the markets used in large portions of the US. The amount paid to generators in a market can shift by a couple orders of magnitude in a day, changes on average throughout a year, and is hard to predict a decade from now. Nuclear on an average $/MWh basis is cost competitive with other generation sources, even with the current issues, but that’s assuming a high capacity factor and a high capacity factor means a nuclear power plant is likely losing money on a portion of its energy sold. As renewable energy increases its share of the grid, the price uncertainty is only going to increase. Is it likely that eventually ISOs will need to add availability factors and dispatch capability into their cost and pricing schemes but these don’t currently exist at a level that makes nuclear competitive. Phanatic posted:Also "it's not worth installing nuclear plants because we might not be able to use all that power and won't be able to make money" is not an actual thing, either. Im pretty sure that’s the biggest thing keeping nuclear capacity from being installed, so I am not sure what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
freezepops posted:Im pretty sure that’s the biggest thing keeping nuclear capacity from being installed, so I am not sure what you mean. We will use as much power as we can install. There are billions of people in the world who will still want air conditioning. It's difficult to come up with use that nuclear is more suited to than desalination. At no point in human history have we greeted a method of producing more energy with *not using more energy.*
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Can't they just sell the excess power to other markets?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
That simply isn’t true, power use changes a lot based on time of day, season, weather, and year. Desalination is also unlikely to be a good use for load balancing by consuming excess power as desalination plants tend to be large capital expenditures and owners want to run them 24/7 to reduce the cost per gallon of water. If this was already a good use of energy while ramping up/down as required, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be occurring now or wouldn’t line up with cheaper renewable generation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
freezepops posted:That simply isn’t true, power use changes a lot based on time of day, season, weather, and year. Desalination is also unlikely to be a good use for load balancing by consuming excess power as desalination plants tend to be large capital expenditures and owners want to run them 24/7 to reduce the cost per gallon of water. If this was already a good use of energy while ramping up/down as required, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be occurring now or wouldn’t line up with cheaper renewable generation. You say this but where's the evidence that this is actually an impediment? How come France with its near-total commitment to nuclear is making excellent profits selling nuclear energy to the rest of Europe? Why is China then building new nuclear plants at a steady pace? Why don't these factors affect other countries with just as large and diverse geographical, demographic, and meteological differences? It doesn't pass the smell test. Right now energy isn't cheap enough for desalination because additional demand for energy would raise rates for everyday consumers; cheap and plentiful nuclear power would encourage additional consumption for heavy advance industries without affecting consumer rates. We see this for example in China, where they have to keep coal plants running or else they get rolling blackouts because there just isn't enough domestic energy production from non-coal sources to keep factories running to meet export quotas. If you built nuclear plants in Texas and connected them to the grid pretty sure these differences all average out and they can still make a profit, especially if the government ceased subsidies to competing fossil fuel generation. It seems to me you could probably give nuclear those subsidies instead so the point in which they made back their investment is a lot sooner and they can be gauranteed a profit point while they work out the optimal average output with any excess going to storage or other networks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
freezepops posted:No it isn’t. The power market can fluctuate dramatically over a few days. Then you're back to talking about load balancing, which is really a conversation about how to deal with wind and solar being absolutely terrible at it. "Demand cycles" is a marketing term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You say this but where's the evidence that this is actually an impediment? How come France with its near-total commitment to nuclear is making excellent profits selling nuclear energy to the rest of Europe? Why is China then building new nuclear plants at a steady pace? Why don't these factors affect other countries with just as large and diverse geographical, demographic, and meteological differences? It doesn't pass the smell test. Yeah agreed. And I really see similarities here between clean power and public transit, where plenty of countries have affordable and effective train systems but the US just fucks around and can't get anything done without spending 100x as much - and then acts as if that is somehow the natural and unavoidable state of things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Also: the smallest cost of running a nuclear plant is fuel. If you're generating at a time when the grid doesn't need it, that's not a disaster, because the cost of fuel is so low.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
aniviron posted:Also: the smallest cost of running a nuclear plant is fuel. If you're generating at a time when the grid doesn't need it, that's not a disaster, because the cost of fuel is so low. And most modern plants, including our Gen IIs, can load follow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
aniviron posted:Also: the smallest cost of running a nuclear plant is fuel. If you're generating at a time when the grid doesn't need it, that's not a disaster, because the cost of fuel is so low. That's not really the problem, though. Nuclear plants are built on borrowed money, and the payments are due regardless of whether it runs or not. It needs to crank out as much electricity as it can, at the best price it can, to keep up with the mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That's not really the problem, though. Nuclear plants are built on borrowed money, and the payments are due regardless of whether it runs or not. It needs to crank out as much electricity as it can, at the best price it can, to keep up with the mortgage. I mean everything is built with borrowed money, it's just a matter of who is paying it. Which again just goes to capital costs, and how nuclear plants have to pay for themselves whereas their competitors get billions in subsidies. And that brings us to carbon taxes and risk-based regulations, meaning offering carrots and sticks based on real world effects rather than pure prescription (I.e. coal plants emit 100x as much radiation as nuclear plants do, but don't even have to monitor it).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 02:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You say this but where's the evidence that this is actually an impediment? How come France with its near-total commitment to nuclear is making excellent profits selling nuclear energy to the rest of Europe? Why is China then building new nuclear plants at a steady pace? Why don't these factors affect other countries with just as large and diverse geographical, demographic, and meteological differences? It doesn't pass the smell test. France significantly benefits from exporting power to neighbors when French demand is low, allowing a higher capacity factor for their nuclear fleet. If you look at the overall EU electrical system, total nuclear energy use is similar to the United States. French operators also benefit by originally having a large governmental investment and competent policy (such as fuel reprocessing) which helps keep costs low. Even so, nuclear power peaked around 75% of the electrical energy produced and has been in a slight decline. France is also hardly a great success when you consider the age of their nuclear fleet and their poor performance in construction of new plants to replace their existing fleet and inability to push closer to an all nuclear fleet. As for cheap and plentiful nuclear power, that honestly just sounds like the same predictions of energy too cheap to meter made in the 60s. It is also completely impossible. Generation if made completely free would only reduce costs to consumers by around 33%. 66% of an electric bill is in the transmission and distribution costs. Texas would also be one of the more difficult places to attempt a full nuclear grid. The small size of the grid would make it extremely costly to build out a full nuclear fleet as some plants would have a capacity factor near 0. Kaal posted:Then you're back to talking about load balancing, which is really a conversation about how to deal with wind and solar being absolutely terrible at it. "Demand cycles" is a marketing term. No we are not back to load balancing. Balancing generation and load is not a problem for nuclear. That is a problem mostly concerned with grid stability and not economic efficiency. Demand cycles is not a marketing term, it is useful to highlight the economics of using a large capital investment for only a short period of time used. The reality is that nuclear power is cost competitive if a plant runs at a high capacity factor. If you have an all nuclear fleet capacity factors of around 0.3 could be expected, which triples the price of nuclear energy. aniviron posted:Also: the smallest cost of running a nuclear plant is fuel. If you're generating at a time when the grid doesn't need it, that's not a disaster, because the cost of fuel is so low. This would literally be a disaster. You cannot keep load and generation out of balance for a significant amount of time (depending on the imbalance you really only have a few minutes or even seconds to respond). The US grid would need a way to pump literally hundreds of gigawatts into a load if this was tried.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
freezepops posted:France significantly benefits from exporting power to neighbors when French demand is low, allowing a higher capacity factor for their nuclear fleet. If you look at the overall EU electrical system, total nuclear energy use is similar to the United States. French operators also benefit by originally having a large governmental investment and competent policy (such as fuel reprocessing) which helps keep costs low. Even so, nuclear power peaked around 75% of the electrical energy produced and has been in a slight decline. France is also hardly a great success when you consider the age of their nuclear fleet and their poor performance in construction of new plants to replace their existing fleet and inability to push closer to an all nuclear fleet. What you are mainly talking about is curtailment. I think 30% utilisation of nuclear is an exaggeration even in a pure nuclear fleet. But if it is the case, utilisation of pure solar/wind fleet would be a fraction of that. How economical would a wind farm be if only 20% of the power it produced (not theoretical installed power) was sold? I fully believe nuclear is better placed to weather curtailment than wind/solar simply because nuclear excess power is so much more consistently predicted to do the sums on alternative uses. Desalination, fuel synthesis and battery charging lend themselves to predictable lower tariff power - as long as it is predictable, available most of the day and stable. On France topping out nuclear install, that is due to pressure from the likes of Greenpeace, not due to economics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
https://m.dw.com/en/germany-to-fire-up-coal-plants-as-russia-turns-down-the-gas/a-62182321 In a move that goes against the principles of his environmentally-friendly Green Party, the country will also have to increase the burning of coal, Habeck said. Shut down nukes, get hooked on Russian gas, burn more coal. Nice
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
10-15 years ago you could make an argument for nuclear in that it made no economic sense, but neither did any other form of non-hydro clean baseload power so maybe the government should just write enough cheques to make it happen. Today it is a lot harder, because the cost of solar and wind generation is now so dirt cheap that they're effectively already the answer to non-hydro renewable generation and the only question remaining is where is clean baseload supply and grid stability going to come from. The baseload supply that used to come from coal generators in non-hydro markets is already slowly shifting to gas plants because they can start up and idle a lot faster to match the signficant and increasing level of solar and wind supply. Utilities are also already starting to dump synchronous condensors and inverter based devices onto their networks to manage stability. I can't see any other future but a slow death for nuclear as both the cost of utility storage mechanisms like pumped hydro and batteries drop in cost as they get rolled out (reducing the need for baseload) and people accept more utility demand control because it gets them cheaper prices (reducing the need for baseload). There are always going to be outlier governments willing to pay whatever it costs to have nuclear, and if you want to hit >50% non hydro renewable generation penetration nuclear is going to be the most reliable option, but the generic lowest cost approach is going to win in most markets and it has been obvious for a while now that that won't be nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 14:03
|
|
|
What didn't and still doesn't make sense is shutting down perfectly good nuclear plants. As we just went over repeatedly, most of the costs are upfront capital costs, or decommissioning... so running them as long as possible is the way to go. Solar/Wind is great and all but it's not exactly apples to apples, since without including storage the actual output is in no way guaranteed to be anywhere near nameplate capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
slorb posted:10-15 years ago you could make an argument for nuclear in that it made no economic sense, but neither did any other form of non-hydro clean baseload power so maybe the government should just write enough cheques to make it happen. Again: If this is the future we are hosed. The idea that only the cheapest solutions will be allowed to address the climate crisia will only result in a systemic collapse. And storage is by no means a solved problem. Pumped storage is not just something you can put anywhere and utilizes something that is going to become ever more important for other things, if not outright wildly expensive: Water. Also, the idea that its even acceptable that we are leaning so heavily on gas peaker plants is insane. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jun 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again: If this is the future we are hosed. The idea that only the cheapest solutions will be allowed to address the climate crisia will only result in a systemic collapse. Tax the long-term effects of carbon emissions, and what's cheapest will change in a hurry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
Someone mentioned batteries as being like fusion. I think that is a great analogy. Pumped hydro (without significant environmental challenges and NIMBY) is a fraction of the storage requirements of a pure wind/solar grid and batteries are a fraction of that. Like three or so years ago international news was made of a battery installation (biggest in Southern hemisphere) that was about 1.1 minutes run time of a good size nuclear plant (100 MWhr South Australian battery, 5,380 MW Barakah plant). So the argument is that 20 years ago batteries could store seconds of storage but now we are at a few minutes on battery so now nuclear does not make sense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
freezepops posted:
which is a thing that not even a single person has ever suggested.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:What you are mainly talking about is curtailment. I think 30% utilisation of nuclear is an exaggeration even in a pure nuclear fleet. But if it is the case, utilisation of pure solar/wind fleet would be a fraction of that. How economical would a wind farm be if only 20% of the power it produced (not theoretical installed power) was sold? I fully believe nuclear is better placed to weather curtailment than wind/solar simply because nuclear excess power is so much more consistently predicted to do the sums on alternative uses. Desalination, fuel synthesis and battery charging lend themselves to predictable lower tariff power - as long as it is predictable, available most of the day and stable. 30% isn’t an exaggeration, its the capacity factor of ERCOT’s generation fleet as a whole. As for solar and wind, certainly the economics get worse with higher renewable energy penetration, they are cheaper today and cost trends show the gap between nuclear and renewables widening. And again alternative such as desal and fuel uses aren’t new possibilities on a fossil free grid. People could be doing it now, and yet we don’t because of large capital costs. However, if battery storage is economical with nuclear power, why would we use nuclear power and not cheaper solar and wind alternatives? The reality is that relying on nuclear energy will require very large cost increases for people, (approximately 2x for residential use, 3x for industrial use) and requires governments retaking control of the generation fleet. That is why nuclear isn’t being deployed much beyond its current share of the energy supply. I do think both are things are something we should do if we aren’t moving to an all renewable grid. And I seriously doubt France is behind schedule and over budget on their newer nuclear plants because of Greenpeace. If they are, Greenpeace is one hell of a powerful organization that can cause similar issues in nuclear deployments across the globe, except Russia and China. It’s the free market system in the US and France that is causing nuclear energy’s failure not some random group most people in the US couldn’t give two shits about. Phanatic posted:which is a thing that not even a single person has ever suggested. Feel free to make your claim. If your only point is a nuclear plant could be built and supply energy, ok we agree. However, this thread is discussing the replacement of fossil fuels with other sources. While certainly some areas suited to hydro or geothermal will have a second dispatchable power source, for a lot of regions this requires an almost all nuclear fleet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 17:04
|
|