Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

You seem to be having difficulty following the discussion. The nuclear battery discussion in this thread did not originate with me. I claimed it was an example of the misalignment between technology's marketing hype, and its real world capacity for practical use.

Wind suffers from a degree of this same type of misalignment. The study in the link that you provided shows that when a full system incorporates wind, the cost per unit of energy is not quite as miraculous as the proponents of wind power claim.

 

For price of nuclear energy I've pointed to the UK nuclear systems being built. One is being built on a site that is already used for nuclear power, so one doesn't have to consider the costs of siting such installations - which itself can be expensive.

For relative cost in the US, one can look at our various government analyses and look at Iowa as a demonstration of a system where the majority of electricity comes from wind. And, one may note that Iowa is increasing energy production by expanding wind - a sign of satisfaction.

 

Well, make that case with analysis that is independent of specific interests.

I do not see Iowa as suffering.

And, the fossil fuel argument has been that wind can not be a significant component of an energy plan for a state - which Iowa demonstrates is a false claim.

 

How can I do that if you refuse to consult your own data?

 

There is no pay wall.

 

Hmm..

https://www.alliantenergy.com/waystosave/savingsprograms/interruptibleprogrambiz

Looks like in Iowa a business can participate in a voluntary program to allow the energy provider to cut service to a predetermined amount during peak usage. This applies to companies with the ability to shed a minimum of 200kW. The reward is a discounted rate.

Question: On a day that requires load shedding, how many employees get sent home without pay?

 

It sounds like energy is being purchased from customers who volunteer.

Obviously, I have no idea what these companies are, how much they depend on employment, what their strategy is, etc.

 

Customers are agreeing to have their power cut by at least 200kW on demand in exchange for a rebate.

Do you think that would put a dent in their production? When a single Amazon warehouse here in CT goes down they lose over $100k an hour...

 

Good point.

I would guess that Amazon hasn't chosen to get lower rates by accepting such a deal as the one you claim.

 

Whether they choose the deal or not they still lose their operating cost when production stops.

Do you think the power company pays them their operating cost to not buy power? The contract at Allegiant in Iowa is a rebate of 5 cents per kWh...

 

I think you are missing that it is the choice of the customer, and that there are customers who make that choice. Given that there are customers who like this deal, why wouldn't I see Allegiant's offer as an innovative emergency plan?

I'm a little surprised, too. But, I haven't seen the deal and haven't seen the businesses and reasoning of the customer.

 

I'm not missing that employers make the choice. I'm pointing out that employees potentially suffer consequences as a result of that choice.

 

I don't believe you know that.

Corporate entities that take advantage of this offer could be recognizing that they can't do business during such power disasters anyway.

But, I respect your concern for employees.

 

What disaster? Allegiant can call on their subscribers to shed load during peak usage so that they don't need to fire up more peaking generators, which are far more costly for Allegiant.

If disaster is on the line, game theory would suggest it's better for a company to refuse the rebate, and hope their competitor accepts it. That way the power stays on, their competitor shuts down, and they stay in production. Otherwise they both shut down and that's fine too.

 

I don't see a point here.

I will add that battery backup has moderated the seriously high cost of spot power in a number of locations.

Perhaps the first was in Australia, where Musk created an industrial sized battery that significantly reduced power cost by addressing this spot power problem.

 

The Australians' renewable energy projects are being challenged by unexpected opponents.
Green on Green: Wilderness Protection Laws and Indigenous Rights are Derailing Renewable Energy Projects
Eric Worrall
Laws protecting Koalas and “the magnificent brood frog” have prevented a renewable energy company from clearing 500 hectares of native vegetation in the Australian tropics. . . .

 

ALL energy sites are slowed by possible environmental impacts discovered in planning/investigation.

Dams, nuclear sites, coal, etc. all have to pass environmental and economic tradeofs.

Using that as an excuse to bring doubt on just one such source you hate is EXACTLY what one would expect from WUWT.

Pathetic.

 

I don't "hate" any form of energy.
WUWT reports all sides.
The point is opposition from an unexpected quarter.

 

Environmental impact of projects that have large footprints is certainly not unexpected.

As I said, all projects have such concerns.

Your cite was just another hit piece on clean energy from a site that is highly in favor of fossil fuel.

 

Your claim is without foundation.