The value of resilience

[Ampster]

If nuclear advocacy has evolved into a cult, it seems to me that alternate energy advocacy has also evolved into a "cult".
Also, it seems to me, cults or those who get sucked into them often have an overdeveloped trait of often being immune to facts.

Perhaps advocacy has evolved in that way. The implementation on an International level has been driven by economics. Often those decisions are fact based.

[nwdiver]

If nuclear advocacy has evolved into a cult, it seems to me that alternate energy advocacy has also evolved into a "cult".
Also, it seems to me, cults or those who get sucked into them often have an overdeveloped trait of often being immune to facts.

My definition of a 'cult' is being unswayed by facts. Show me a 1GW nuclear plant that can be built on-time and on-budget for ~$4B and I'll support more nuclear power. If wind was still >$5/w or fell apart after 5 years I wouldn't support wind. If solar was still >$10/w I wouldn't support solar. But those aren't the facts. The FACTS are that new nuclear costs ~$15/w. Wind and solar are ~$1/w. I'm a slave to reality. That's the opposite of a cult.

As I mentioned before. I grew up in the nuclear industry. I have a degree in nuclear engineering. I was a HUGE supporter of nuclear 10 years ago. My support for nuclear started shifting in ~2014... with the facts. By 2017 after the bankruptcy of Westinghouse and cancelation of VC Summer, based on the facts further support for nuclear wasn't possible. It was clear beyond any reasonable doubt with an objective view of the facts that thermal nuclear power had no future.

If someone invents a nuclear power source that can produce electricity for $5/MWh I'll support that over wind and solar. But that's physically impossible if you need to pay to heat water then pay to cool it as thermal nuclear does. Physics.

[J.P.M.]

Math isn't an 'opinion'; Nuclear costs 6x more per kWh vs solar or wind, that's not an 'opinion', that's math.

I worked in nuclear power for 15 years. I have a degree in nuclear engineering. I've been installing solar for 8 years. I doubt there are many people that have seen both sides of the 'debate' as I have. Please accept the reality that new nuclear has no place on the grid. There is no scenario where it makes any sense with solar and wind now <$1/w and EVs able to soak up surplus renewables reducing curtailment. Nuclear advocacy has evolved into a 'cult' immune to facts. That bothers me.

If nuclear advocacy has evolved into a cult, it seems to me that alternate energy advocacy has also evolved into a "cult".
Also, it seems to me, cults or those who get sucked into them often have an overdeveloped trait of often being immune to facts.

[nwdiver]

You seem to advocate that all decisions be made based solely on dollars. As for mass energy
storage, the problem has been worked on for a couple centuries, and I will not be holding my
breath awaiting a solution. Bruce Roe

At some point the cost does become the primary determining factor. If you're trying to decide between two similar items the qualities of one might outweigh the other if it's 10% more expensive. Maybe 15%. Probably not >50%. No way 600%. Nuclear is 600% more expensive per kWh than solar or wind and that gap is widening. I agree nuclear deserves a premium over renewables. Maybe a 200% premium... NOT 600%. What premium do you think it deserves.

There's a reason the adage 'Necessity is the mother of invention' exists. We haven't had electricity for >1 century and there's still no 'need' for 'mass storage' as I've mentioned several times.

[nwdiver]

You seem to advocate that all decisions be made based solely on dollars. As for mass energy
storage, the problem has been worked on for a couple centuries, and I will not be holding my
breath awaiting a solution. Bruce Roe

'A couple centuries'? We've been trying to find a way to store electricity since before electricity?

There's a reason we have the saying 'necessity is the mother of invention'; What's the economic advantage to 'mass storage'? For the 3rd time.... UNTIL THERE IS >>>SURPLUS<<< renewables there really isn't much benefit to 'mass' storage.

I'm not saying 'dollars' is the only factor. But it IS 'A' factor. It's certainly NOT... NOT a factor. It's not like the economics are close... 6x is not close.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say I have a magic black box that will produce 1kW 24/7/365. It will cost you $15k and $10/mo. Would you be interested? Why on Earth would I want that? For $15k I can get 10kW of solar and 20kWh of batteries that will provide twice as much energy per day with similar reliability. Even with the 1kW magic box I would STILL need some form of storage to buffer when I want AC or any other loads that need >1kW. My peak demand is ~10kW. Should I buy 10 magic boxes for $150k? Nuclear is in a similar predicament. Solar, Wind and Storage are just more cost effective ESPECIALLY when we generally don't need capacity.


Serious Question:
Let's say I'm trying to decide whether I should spend $15B on 1GW of nuclear and produce 8TWh/yr of clean energy or $15B on 15GW of on-shore wind to produce 55TWh/yr of clean energy. Explain why Nuclear is the better option. Explain your 'opinion' on why 8 is a bigger number than 55......

[bcroe]

You seem to advocate that all decisions be made based solely on dollars. As for mass energy
storage, the problem has been worked on for a couple centuries, and I will not be holding my
breath awaiting a solution. Bruce Roe

[nwdiver]

We are obviously way apart on our opinions so instead of taking up space on the forum I will just say we agree to disagree.

That will be my last post on this thread.

Math isn't an 'opinion'; Nuclear costs 6x more per kWh vs solar or wind, that's not an 'opinion', that's math.

I worked in nuclear power for 15 years. I have a degree in nuclear engineering. I've been installing solar for 8 years. I doubt there are many people that have seen both sides of the 'debate' as I have. Please accept the reality that new nuclear has no place on the grid. There is no scenario where it makes any sense with solar and wind now <$1/w and EVs able to soak up surplus renewables reducing curtailment. Nuclear advocacy has evolved into a 'cult' immune to facts. That bothers me.

[SunEagle]

??? That's literally how the grid works. There's a gas plant near my house that hasn't operated in 2 years. Still maintained in case they need it.

Do you know of a better way to meet the coincident peak demand that only occurs a few times a year? How is nuclear a better answer? It costs $1/w to build a gas turbine and $14/kW/yr to keep in reserve. Nuclear costs $15/w to build and $120/kW/yr to keep in reserve.

How.... how is spending $120/kW/yr cheaper than $14???

I never claimed battery storage is 'cheap and efficient'; In fact most research is suggesting it's actually cheaper to overbuild solar and wind ~4x than to use storage. Which makes more sense the cheaper it gets. Even if you'r curtailing ~75% of renewables so you have enough to meet demand when there's less sun and wind it's STILL cheaper than nuclear. As I said before. The purpose of storage is to reduce curtailment. As I said before. Demand Response is the first solution to curtailment.

At some point storage will make sense. If you want 100MW during peak hours in the evening storage is the best solution. If you want 2GW available during fire season for a few weeks gas turbines are the best solution. If you want to reduce annual emissions wind and solar are the best solutions. If you want to waste billions of dollars that could do ~6x more good elsewhere nuclear is the best solution.




LOL! Says the guy that thinks nuclear is cost effective The cost of storage has declined ~90% in the past 10 years. Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive. I'm not 'dreaming'... it's called extrapolation

Even at todays prices storage is pretty much where we need it. ~$200/kWh with a cycle life of ~5000 cycles. That's $0.04/kWh.

The idea that we don't have 'mass storage' => mass storage isn't possible is idiotic. That's like claiming the fact I can't defend against Tigers means Tiger defense is impossible. I don't have a defense because I don't need one!

Why would XYZ utility invest $50M in storage to burn 50MWh of gas in 5 hours instead of now when they can invest $50M in solar or wind and just reduce fuel burn?

UNTIL THERE IS SURPLUS SOLAR OR WIND STORAGE MAKES ~NO SENSE;

=> WE WILL NOT SEE 'MASS' STORAGE UNTIL THERE IS 'MASS' CURTAILMENT!!!

We are obviously way apart on our opinions so instead of taking up space on the forum I will just say we agree to disagree.

That will be my last post on this thread.

[nwdiver]

If you had to build and maintain small gas turbines and keep them ready to go on line at a moment notice you would go broke waiting for those times.

??? That's literally how the grid works. There's a gas plant near my house that hasn't operated in 2 years. Still maintained in case they need it.

Do you know of a better way to meet the coincident peak demand that only occurs a few times a year? How is nuclear a better answer? It costs $1/w to build a gas turbine and $14/kW/yr to keep in reserve. Nuclear costs $15/w to build and $120/kW/yr to keep in reserve.

How.... how is spending $120/kW/yr cheaper than $14???

I never claimed battery storage is 'cheap and efficient'; In fact most research is suggesting it's actually cheaper to overbuild solar and wind ~4x than to use storage. Which makes more sense the cheaper it gets. Even if you'r curtailing ~75% of renewables so you have enough to meet demand when there's less sun and wind it's STILL cheaper than nuclear. As I said before. The purpose of storage is to reduce curtailment. As I said before. Demand Response is the first solution to curtailment.

At some point storage will make sense. If you want 100MW during peak hours in the evening storage is the best solution. If you want 2GW available during fire season for a few weeks gas turbines are the best solution. If you want to reduce annual emissions wind and solar are the best solutions. If you want to waste billions of dollars that could do ~6x more good elsewhere nuclear is the best solution.

Sorry. But you are dreaming that large scale storage will come cheap and do the job when needed.

LOL! Says the guy that thinks nuclear is cost effective The cost of storage has declined ~90% in the past 10 years. Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive. I'm not 'dreaming'... it's called extrapolation

Even at todays prices storage is pretty much where we need it. ~$200/kWh with a cycle life of ~5000 cycles. That's $0.04/kWh.

The idea that we don't have 'mass storage' => mass storage isn't possible is idiotic. That's like claiming the fact I can't defend against Tigers means Tiger defense is impossible. I don't have a defense because I don't need one!

Why would XYZ utility invest $50M in storage to burn 50MWh of gas in 5 hours instead of now when they can invest $50M in solar or wind and just reduce fuel burn?

UNTIL THERE IS SURPLUS SOLAR OR WIND STORAGE MAKES ~NO SENSE;

=> WE WILL NOT SEE 'MASS' STORAGE UNTIL THERE IS 'MASS' CURTAILMENT!!!

[SunEagle]

We don't need a 'large scale storage system' anytime soon. It's helpful but not necessary. Clearly storage is coming but the primary reason it doesn't exist at scale is necessity. Unless you're storing solar and wind that would otherwise be curtailed storage doesn't help reduce emissions. We can still add A LOT of solar and wind before we start seeing significant curtailment. Even then the best solution is demand response not storage. We simply don't need much storage until wind and solar are >80% of generation. At those levels nuclear would also require storage since it's so expensive to build and maintain. If demand varies between 30GW and 60GW you wouldn't build 60GW of nuclear. You'd build ~40GW and try to maximize capacity factor with storage.

Sorry. But you are dreaming that large scale storage will come cheap and do the job when needed.

[SunEagle]

That's why... as I said... if you need a GW of capacity you add 1GW of gas that costs $1/w to install vs $15/w for nuclear and costs $14/kW/yr to keep ready vs ~$120/kW/yr for nuclear. If you want to reduce your use of fools fuel by 1MWh you generate it from renewables for ~$20 not nuclear for $120. 24/7 energy cleaner and cheaper the nuclear.

Think about it. Vogtle cost $30B. That's INSANE. Vogtle will provide (fingers crossed it's not cancelled) 2GW of capacity and 16TWh/yr of carbon free energy for $30B to build and $240M/yr to maintain. How much would it cost to get 2GW of capacity and 16TWh/yr from renewables and gas? 2GW of gas costs ~$2B. You'd need ~5GW of wind to get 16TWh/yr. So for $7B and ~$28M/yr you get just as much as if you'd spent $30B on nuclear. Since you hate money so much you can spend the $23B you saved on 23GW of utility scale solar and generate another 41TWh/yr. So that's 2GW of reliable capacity + 57TWh/yr (3.5x MORE) AND.... AND you're spending $200M LESS on O&M! (nukes are speeeennnnsive!)

AND.... AND those are costs TODAY. As I'm sure you're aware solar keeps getting cheaper while nuclear somehow keeps finding ways to get more expensive.

Eventually you can use surplus renewables to split water and use H2 to run your turbines when there isn't enough wind, solar or storage.

If you had to build and maintain small gas turbines and keep them ready to go on line at a moment notice you would go broke waiting for those times.

Now if you had a fossil fuel generating station running close to top efficiency you would be able to make money and keep the equipment fixed.

Just like some peoples' feelings that nuclear plants are old school and costly, I really understand the costs of keeping peaker plant around without any income. They too will become old school and disappear because of cost before they become necessary.

Take a look at the cost of battery storage and then make me believe they are cheap and efficient to run a very large load over a long period of time. Sure they can be there for short period of time but how about for days when the sun isn't shining like it is now for most of the smoke covered states.

[nwdiver]

I don't understand how your "non-thermal nuclear power" argument is relevant? I guess your basing this all on cost and ignoring the fact that we don't have a large scale storage system. Hopefully the day never comes where we do have a small ice age due to a volcanic or other event.

We don't need a 'large scale storage system' anytime soon. It's helpful but not necessary. Clearly storage is coming but the primary reason it doesn't exist at scale is necessity. Unless you're storing solar and wind that would otherwise be curtailed storage doesn't help reduce emissions. We can still add A LOT of solar and wind before we start seeing significant curtailment. Even then the best solution is demand response not storage. We simply don't need much storage until wind and solar are >80% of generation. At those levels nuclear would also require storage since it's so expensive to build and maintain. If demand varies between 30GW and 60GW you wouldn't build 60GW of nuclear. You'd build ~40GW and try to maximize capacity factor with storage.

[peatmoss]

I don't understand how your "non-thermal nuclear power" argument is relevant? I guess your basing this all on cost and ignoring the fact that we don't have a large scale storage system. Hopefully the day never comes where we do have a small ice age due to a volcanic or other event.

[nwdiver]

The only option currently for always on large scale power that is not carbon based is nuclear.

Only if they can find a way to use nuclear to make electricity without the liquid => gas => liquid cycle (aka thermal generation). It's cheaper to convert photons and wind into electricity than heat. So even if the heat source is free (it's not) Solar PV and wind are cheaper. The final piece will be power to gas then the gas turbines will effectively run on stored solar and wind.

Until someone invents non-thermal nuclear power, which I'm not even sure is possible. Nuclear is a dead end.

[peatmoss]

The only option currently for always on large scale power that is not carbon based is nuclear. Gas turbine with renewables is a nice bridge to the future of nuclear and renewables. I'm sure storage has a place in there as well to make renewables more stable. Bottom line its coming, maybe not in the US because we crippled by red tape and partisan politics and have no good plan for the future. The good news is we can probably buy it from China.