Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

Why don't you provide some data?

Like how much of the fossil-fueled baseload systems have been retired, decommissioned, and put out of service since wind has become such a large part of the mix?

What has happened to actual rate payers bills? Are they actually saving money since all of this heralded wind has come on line?

These should be easy questions.

 

The problem is not wind power, but rather false cost claims about wind power.

 

It's real easy to suggest a simple solution to a problem when you have no concept of the complexity of the system the problem exists within.

This is a problem that has existed as long as electrical distribution has existed. Humans are always needed to monitor automated systems, but in this specific instance the bug was a fault in the alert system. There were no warning lights to monitor. Monitoring the raw data, on the other hand, is a monumental task for a human... Beyond that, once the automated system hits the E-stop on a power plant, even if shut down in error, a human cannot restart that plant immediately. Further complicating things is that adding in more supply to address a problem in one region can cause failure in regions that are functional. Sorting out the cause, source, and solution to a specific failure takes time, and in that time the next weakest link in the chain has the potential for overload.

I think the families of the 100 people that died as a result would disagree with you vehemently. Not to mention the 55 million people effected.

As an energy grid becomes not just more interconnected, but more interdependent, the potential for a cascade failure like this grows. It's not just a resource problem. It's a communication problem. It's a design problem. It's an efficiency problem. Adding less predictable energy sources to mix just makes the problem more complex. It's not a "let's just throw 2 trillion dollars at it and it will be solved" kind of issue.

Iowa struggles with a regional issue of derechos & tornadoes. The last major one in 2020 knocked out power in Iowa for weeks. The fleet of windmills at the time were not significantly damaged by the winds, but despite that windmills can't be run during a storm like that, and they can't be restarted until they are inspected for damage.

 

I pointed to and EXISTING system - Iowa.

I did so in order to get around all these claims of too intermittent, too complex, too expensive, etc. that come after pointing out that wind is less expensive than other methods.

This was a grid problem. I've stated many times that there are issues with our grids - vulnerable to nature and attack, expensive to transmit power, etc.

So, yes. We need to care about our infrastructure - of all kinds. We poisoned the children of Flint with water. We have slower internet than many countries. We have problems with bridges. And, we have a fragile and expensive to use electricity grid.

Please cite.

When I find issues with power in 2020 Iowa, the problems do NOT MENTION power generation.

They DO mention the problems of downed power lines and the problems workers face with downed trees, damaged homes, etc.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...-power-alliant-midamerican-energy/5598683002/

Are you sure of your claims?

 

Why don't YOU. This is the easiest google imaginable. Just google "price of electricity in Iowa".

"The average residential electricity rate in Iowa is 14 ¢/kWh, which is 26% lower than the national average rate of 19 ¢/kWh."

https://www.energysage.com/local-da...residential electricity rate,rate of 19 ¢/kWh.

 

Then give data on false cost claims about wind power!

Show how the price of electricity in Iowa is cheating in some way, or how it can't be duplicated in other central region states, because Iowa has some unfair advantage.

 

There is no cheating by Iowa; they know how much they pay. There is cheating in the way wind energy advocates do not include back-up costs in their presentations.

 

It's really not about Iowa at all. It's about the wastefulness of the "climate change" BS and the supposed "solutions" needed to "reduce our carbon footprint".

Seriously. If all wind power is doing is raising costs to consumers, there are much better uses for that money.

Same for EVs and every other whacky solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

How much "back-up costs" is Iowan paying?

When they extend their wind (as they plan to do) how much more will other sources have to grow, and how is that not being accounted for?

 

I haven't seen evidence that their direction with wind is being take because of their concern about climate.

Have you?

 

How can it not be about climate given the absolute insane fervor it's being pushed with these days? Everything's about climate. If it's not, it's about gender. Literally, you can't throw a rock without hitting some CEO that's been harassed to death by government and protesters demanding to know how they intend to fix the planet.

How do you think EVs suddenly, after 30 years in modern obscurity, became the thing we all must buy?

It sure as heck isn't about some new concern for customers or the planet, both of which were doing just fine.

 

You would have take a detailed look at Iowa's rates, something I have neither the time nor the inclination to do.

 

Do you have any concept of how that existing system functions? Not just a qualitative evaluation, but from the perspective of process? I don't think you do.

Qualitative evaluations have their place, but I'm greatly concerned that these qualitative evaluations have created a bubble that the engineers charged with filling that bubble with quantitative results cannot fill. That's why I've been making a quantitative argument, as evidenced by all the numbers I keep throwing at you. Around the world we've already seen the deflation of some of these bubbles. We see governments pulling back from renewable energy targets. We see energy prices skyrocketing around Europe. We've see the consequences of the disparity between the sales pitch and the actual engineered product behind that pitch.

The battle between sales and product development is a common trope. We saw evidence of it here in the discussion of the nuclear batteries. The sales pitch is ENERGY FOR 20 THOUSANDS YEARS! YOUR CAR WILL RUN FOR DECADES WITHOUT A CHARGE! YOUR PHONE WILL LAST FOREVER! The average person gets all jazzed up for that prospect. The salesmen make their sales of the vapor they are selling. Meanwhile the engineers are wide eyed with their mouths agape wondering how they are going to create a product that runs on 100 microwatts of power...

Earlier this week I searched up many of the wind energy companies in Iowa. There are definitely quite a few wind farms there. Many near enough to a road that they were captured by a google street view car. Do you know how many of them I saw that weren't spinning? Do you know how far apart they are from each other and what sort of challenge that might present to a company that has to inspect and maintain them after a weather event that exceeds 50mph?

 

Did you all know that Walmart work boots are cheaper than redwing work boots? It’s amazing.

 

The quality of EVs has increased. Prices have fallen. Gas prices have gone so high that they've been a cause of inflation.

People are buying EVs. Tesla hasn't even advertised.

 

OK, but you're making claims that are not supported by the energy plan of Iowa.

 

There are serious benefits in looking actual real world systems. Real world systems include all the specifics.

There are other times when it is important to dig into what improvements might be possible, whether they are really available to scale, what they cost, how they work, etc.

Iowa shows that wind is a serious direction today. Iowa has analyzed their needs and has determined that the cost effective way to meet their needs is to increase their wind production.

The nuclear device you identified is super cool from a technical point of view, but it doesn't answer questions needed for including it in a state or national energy strategy - or a home strategy, for that matter.

It would be great to see that kind of progress.

 

No. My claims have nothing to do with Iowa's energy plan.

 

If you know the specifics, please include them.

I just went back and looked. It was FreshAir that introduced the topic of nuclear batteries. I had misremembered that you had introduced the topic. I was using it as an example of the difference between the sales pitch and the reality. Just like there's a difference between a wind powered sales pitch and a reality.

 

Yes.

 

No, there are far too many parts to the system as a whole.

And, Iowa is reality.

Again, my point is that there is a LOT of room for growing wind power in America. And, that is far cheaper to do that trying to build more nuclear, hydro or other forms of energy.

 

Even cheaper to just keep the old, still functional fossil-fueled power plants.

 

They are aging out. So, the question becomes what to replace them with.

Plus, climate change does happen to be a serious issue, according to climate science the world over.

The second most significant power source in Iowa is coal - which demonstrates that they are NOT making decisions based on what is best for the environment. Aging coal plants are the worst possible source for climate, even if you don't care about the rape of our land by coal mining.

 

You have no way to measure what that reality is if you have no concept of the parts of the whole.

 

So you're adding wind to an existing system that still needs to function as is and then you want to replace the perfectly functional existing base load systems anyway.

And people like you wonder why normal people who have to pay for this crap don't believe a word of the climate change myth. All it seems to be is an old fashioned con to get more of their money.