The Key Driver of Energy: Cost
Larry Lemmert, astute as always, wrote a terrific comment here, to the effect that our assessments of the dangers of nuclear energy are unfounded, and the math we attempt to apply here unfair.
I think it’s true that there is a kind of mass hysteria about nuclear, which, given the statistics to date, is unfair. It’s also true that new designs in nuclear facilities make them far safer than they were 40 years ago. However, I’m worried about waste disposal, and I’m also worried about costs. The latter is the reason that I think it’s essentially over for nuclear. Obviously, if a practical breakthrough in thorium comes along, I’ll be (most happily) eating these words. But for now, the cost of renewables is falling steadily; the cost of nuclear is going the other way.
As we’re seeing with natural gas and the buzz about shale oil, cost/price is the 600-pound gorilla, as there is no political will to price in the externalities of energy generation.
…also worried about costs. The latter is the reason that I think it’s essentially over for nuclear.
You may be right Craig but not for the reason you cite. Nuclear may go away at least for the next 50 years or so, not because of renewables beating them on price but because gas from fracking has become dirt cheap.
We have 2 nuclear plants in Wisconsin, Kewaunee and Point Beach. Both are on Lake Michigan. Kewaunee will be shutting down in January and Point Beach will operate for another 30 or so years. What’s the difference?
Point Beach negotiated a long term contract to sell power to Wisconsin utilities at a fixed price when they were up for re-licensing. It was a good move. Prices were pretty good.
Kewaunee had a few delivery contracts but they expire in January. The price of power generated by gas turbines is quite a bit cheaper than nuclear power. There will be no market for power from the Kewaunee reactor. They can’t sell it for less than it cost to produce.
If the frack gas is still around in 30 years, Point Beach would have the same problem except that it is unlikely that they would try to renew their license anyway. The plant has old technology now and in 30 years we may have thorium reactors that are less expensive to operate, safer and way fewer disposal issues.
Renewables are not in the equation for competing with nuclear. They may be competetive but the hand writing is already on the wall.
Ha,
On that same thread, I just posted the following, having not yet noticed you had written this post:
Quickly weighing in on nuclear power. I’m actually strongly for nuclear energy… but you have to understand that our government system will never enable it to be competitive. This isn’t ranting about one faction or another.
Locals have more control over the decisions on nuclear energy. And they have legitimate fears over water consumption, end-of-life plant retirement, property values, and extreme low-probability failure events (as well as less valid concerns)… Because of this so many studies are forced into zoning cases, and so many minor tweaks are forced into the design… that each plant is built as a one-off design.
This then becomes absurdly expensive, and non-competitive.
I don’t know how to make it not so. As long as locals have zoning authority, this issue will persist. It’s only in centralized government structures where single-design multiple-production enables cost savings and a competitive industry.
It seems like we largely agree on nuclear.
Nuclear energy has served mankind, in one way or another, for almost 70 years. Although it has some risks, and its opponents point to Fukushima, 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl, they never point to France.
Let’s scrap the NRC safety code and replace it with one regulation: “All operating and supervisory engineers and their families must make their permanent domiciles within two statute miles of the plant they operate, and any of their children under the age of 18 must attend school within 3 statute miles of said plant. Members of the Board of Directors of the plant’s corporate owners must live at least 3 calendar months of each calendar year within two statue miles of said plant.”
I suspect that every imaginable safety precaution will henceforth be built-in to the plant’s systems and operating procedures, don’t you?