Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

Iowa and EIA have all sorts of stats on what is being generated, what is being used, the number of households, the advantage of home solar, etc., etc.

 

No, wind is the cheapest energy we can build.

Building other sources adds more to the cost of electricity generated.

Nuclear is an example. One can look at the nuclear projects in UK. When completed, they will add significantly to the average cost of electricity.

Iowa has determined that they need to generate more electricity. They plan on doing that by building more wind generation.

 

You stated earlier that the system was too complex to include it's components in your discussion.

Which is it? Is it too complex, or do you have access to the data you need to understand the process?

 

Here's a perfect example of a claim you could justify with quantitative data.

I'd like to see a budget comparison for the acquisition of land, permitting, construction, operation, maintenance, grid regulation, and decommission of a wind generation installation vs a nuclear installation.

 

On top of the existing baseload system, thus increasing the price to the customer.

Simple economics. Don't know what's so hard about that.

 

The Chinese are uninterested.
Right, Wall Street Journal, John Kerry Did Fail to Persuade China to Give Up Reliable Energy
ECONOMICS AND POLICY JANUARY 19, 2024

 

One source that I think is not being researched enough is the potential energy in the continuous changing sea level. We have effectively an infinite mass of water being raised and lowered by the moon. This is guaranteed 24 hours per day. Similar to the energy capture from a hydroelectric dam but the energy is obtained from the mass of water impacting on a bellow system placed on the sea bed.

Sometime ago I did some calculations to compare the horizontal energy obtained from waves per unit area and compared it to the potential energy of the vertical movement of water due to the position of the moon and it came at around 30% for the same area size. However, normal wave energy capture cannot be stepped up in size across a river. Unlike my proposal as the whole of a sea bed can be used. Maintenance might be an issue but the harshness of the environment on the sea bed is not as severe as on the surface

 

My point has been that Iowa demonstrates that renewables can be a major part of an energy plan, unlike the claims by many that wind can't be considered seriously. This has been proven by Iowa.

That has been my topic here.

I was resisting your suggestion of analyzing Iowa's system component by component, as there are numerous components and they aren't even all technological. More importantly, even if it were possible, it wouldn't address what my point has been.


Of course new technology is interesting and should be considered on its merits. But, such new technologies are not the point here - whether they are the rapidly advancing battery technologies, new nuclear designs, or other such advances.

 

There are various sites that show such an analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

There factors to consider in choosing how to analyze this question. Different analyses show different choices made.

For instance, while nuclear is expensive to build, it is incredibly cheap when it comes to doing the work to extend the life of an already existing plant.

What I've looked for is the resulting price of electricity for building new energy sources.

Thus, for real world examples of nuclear, one can look at the nuclear projects in England, where new nuclear power is being built on sites that already have nuclear power - thus cutting out costs related to siting. It also includes an idea of the governmental support required for such projects. These confirm the high cost of new nuclear energy today.

I'm not anti-nuclear. But, so far it is an expensive solution.

And, it is a sidelight to the central issue of whether renewables, including wind, can be a major part of our energy solution as demonstrated by Iowa.

 

I don't believe anybody should be surprised that a representative of the US couldn't change China's energy policy.

Let's remember that China is the world leader in wind and solar technology. We are NOT.

China owns more patents, manufactures more high quality components, exports more, and installs more in China.

China also leads in battery technology.

On top of that, China's economy is under stress.

The idea that we would send Kerry to China to rewrite their energy policy smacks of disrespect.

 

Did you read any of the studies included in this link?

 

I hope to have time to read about the small compact nuclear idea in your posts, as it seemed interesting.

But, its off the topic of Iowa and their demonstration of the importance of renewable energy.

 

China is al the world leader in coal power and coal power expansion.

 

Do you seriously think that a sit-down with Kerry is going to change their energy direction?

In 2005, China got 73% of their electricity from coal.

Today, it is 55%.

So, no. Coal is not increasing in China.

Also, their oil consumption is tapering off, though more slowly. It will be interesting to watch how their recent transportation law will affect that movement.

 

Of course it was stupid to think Kerry would change their minds, but that kind of stupidity characterizes US policy these days.
China has aggressively expanded coal energy production. The fact that it has declined as a percentage speaks to the growth of Chinese energy, not a lessening Chinese commitment to coal.

 

Please cite.

 

Here you go.
BEIJING, Jan 17 (Reuters) – China’s coal output reached a record high in 2023, data from the statistics bureau showed on Wednesday, amid an ongoing focus on energy security and a rise in demand after pandemic-related restrictions eased.
The world’s biggest coal producer mined 4.66 billion metric tons of the fuel last year, up 2.9% from a year earlier, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.
For December, output reached 414.31 million tons, nearly flat with November’s 414 million tons and up 1.9% from the year-earlier level.
Daily output over the month was 13.36 million tons, slipping from November’s record high daily average of 13.8 million tons.
The country’s overall power generation, which is dominated by coal-fired plants, rose 8% year-on-year in December.
Analysts are predicting another modest coal production increase in 2024. The rate of growth has slowed over the past year, following an energy security push that drove a ramp-up of output beginning in 2021.
Full story

China’s 2023 coal output hits record high
Guest Blogger
Mr. Kerry’s problem has been a failure to recognize reality, which is typical of America’s climate lobby. . . .

 

That's a cut from someone's blog. You should ensure that blogs are backed by cited data.

Month on month numbers do not answer the question, as China's direction doesn't change month by month, while consumption and production rates do. What's important is China's overall direction - not numbers from one or two months in some year the blogger chose.

Let's be serious.

Ever since 2011 coal has been a shrinking percent of China's energy source.

The fact of that shrinkage denies the claim that coal is where they are putting their emphasis.

Instead, it points out that they are putting their emphasis on other sources than coal.

 

It's a Reuters article linked in the post: Full story
You are in denial. Case closed.

 

The data are the skeptics' allies.

Markers Along The Road To The Death Of Net Zero
January 20, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  What will the death of the green energy illusion look like?
  
  
• From time to time (see, for example, here and here) I have described a vision where some state or country runs headlong into a “green energy wall” — an impassable barricade of physical impossibility, characterized by scarcity and blackouts, into which the country crashes suddenly. Among the net zero zealot countries I have identified as the leading candidates for imminently hitting such a wall are Germany and the UK.
  
  
• But perhaps, instead of a sudden crash, the demise of the green energy illusion will look more like a slow but steady decline, a gradual withering of economic activity and prosperity.
  
  
• In this scenario, high energy prices brought about by energy restrictions drive important industries out of business and, as good jobs disappear and energy prices increase, the people gradually and inexorably get poorer.
  
  
• Recent events in the UK and Germany seem to point in the direction of this type of scenario.
  

READ MORE

 

I take that to mean you did not read any of the studies in the link you provided? I suggest you look into the attempt to calculate the levelized full system cost of electricity contained in that link. Once you're familiar we can discuss how these results are also reflected in some of the other studies on that same page.

 

Here's a direct link to the study from your link:

https://www.eavor.com/what-the-experts-say/levelized-full-system-costs-of-electricity/

 

I don't need to do that here.

My point is supported by a real world example - Iowa.

No system is perfect, and I wouldn't argue that Iowa's is perfect. But, it does show that wind can be the major source of electricity generation for a state.

Also, your small nuclear solution link is no longer of interest.

 

That's pretty sound support for what I've been saying about nuclear. UK's embrace of nuclear is going to be expensive.

As for the details (conveniently hidden behind pay walls - lol), this sounds a lot like the coal plants moaning about the fact that such plants do not last forever.

There are many reasons for becoming noncompetitive.

 

You don't need to do anything.

But do bear in mind the thread is called:

Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds.

and you appear to be attempting to argue that since a wind system exists it must be efficient and or sustainable.

In point of fact you claim:

I'm just pointing out you have failed to back that up with any real world data. In reality, the data you presented shows the exact opposite.