Why Nuclear Power Is Cheaper Than Renewables

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jack Hays, Jul 29, 2024.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This should drive a stake through the heart of "cheap renewables" nonsense. The order-of-magnitude increase in power demand that will be generated by AI only makes renewables' shortcomings more apparent. If you want AI then you want nuclear power. If you want abundant power and lowered emissions then you want nuclear power. If you want the cheapest possible power then you want natural gas.

    [​IMG]
    ECONOMIC COSTS
    Why Nuclear is Cheaper than Wind and Solar
    July 29, 2024
    Guest Post by Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling
    Editors’ Note: This guest post explains how nuclear is actually cheaper than wind and solar, contrary to what most renewables advocates claim. Climate Realism has explained previously how wind and solar are actually far more costly than activists claim, here and here, and that they are not as “green” as advertised, here.

    Wind and solar supporters have a nasty habit of pretending that their preferred energy sources are the “cheapest forms of energy.” The problem, of course, is that they use unrealistic Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) estimates—see Cooking the Books for wind and solar—and they conveniently forget to mention the large system costs needed to reliably serve electricity demand using these unreliable energy sources.

    That’s why, despite its high up-front capital costs, powering an electric grid with nuclear power is cheaper than using wind, solar, and battery storage.

    Before we jump into the benefits of nuclear power, it’s important for our readers to understand that building a fleet of nuclear power plants will be very expensive, which will increase costs for ratepayers. A forced energy transition of any kind is going to increase costs inherently, and nuclear is no different.

    If your main priority is reliable, low-cost power, keeping the existing coal and natural gas plants online and building new natural gas plants as needed will be the more affordable option. If decarbonizing the electric grid is your main priority, building new nuclear power plants will deliver a superior value to electricity customers, with reliable service at a lower cost than a grid powered largely by wind, solar, and battery storage. . . .
     
    Bullseye, AFM, drluggit and 1 other person like this.
  2. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not cheaper at all. Nuclear is the most expensive power source on the planet. It takes about 10 years to build a nuclear power plant, and historically there have always been extreme cost overruns. And oh my - what to do with the waste? Let's have an entire Federal department called the NRC to monitor that. Hundreds of thousands of years. That's how long it has to be stored. Current containment is rated for 200 years. Who will monitor this in the future? Is that cost factored into the expense of Nuclear?
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2024
    FreshAir and Bowerbird like this.
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The prevalence of nuclear power is inevitable.
     
    AFM likes this.
  4. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    15,218
    Likes Received:
    15,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The fakest of fake news.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    15,218
    Likes Received:
    15,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pure delusional hocum.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The numbers are quite real.
     
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is denial.
     
  8. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    15,218
    Likes Received:
    15,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Suggest you abandon the cherry picker and look further afield at more 'numbers'.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's all in #1, which is conclusive.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2024
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,247
    Likes Received:
    79,691
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Another day another astroturf blog

    I will take the word of the main players in the field that the upfront costs of nuclear make it unaffordable against renewables
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,247
    Likes Received:
    79,691
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    https://www.un.org/en/climatechange...cheapest form,energy generation costs in 2022.
    that is one site
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

    https://www.energy.gov.au/news-media/news/renewables-confirmed-cheapest-source-electricity
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng...cale nuclear is estimated,be $230 to $382/MWh.
     
    Media_Truth likes this.
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The numbers are quite clear. Ignore them at your peril.
    ". . . The benefits of nuclear power – mainly, its dispatchability and longevity – result in far lower system costs than wind and solar.

    We see this all the time in the real world. FERC Form 1 data consistently show existing nuclear plants generating electricity for $20.15 per MWh in Virginia, $21.71 per MWh in North Carolina, $37 per MWh in Minnesota, and $26.19 per MWh nationwide. Even without accounting for the system cost of incorporating wind and solar onto the system, the existing nuclear fleet in America is less expensive than existing wind and solar facilities, which cost $52 per MWh and $73 per MWh, respectively, according to FERC Form 1 data. . . ."
     
  13. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're asking the tub-thumpers about . . . tub-thumping. Meanwhile, the numbers point the other way.
    Conclusion

    Nuclear power plants provide a superior value to consumers relative to wind and solar because of their dispatchable characteristics. This means less installed capacity can serve more load, more predictably. This eliminates the need for backup generators and overbuilding and curtailment.

    Not accounting for system costs when considering which energy sources to build on the grid is one of the most egregious oversights in the energy industry, one that has led to incredible inefficiency and rising energy costs for many Americans.

    When one does consider system costs and long-term value, nuclear plants are by far the most affordable carbon-free energy source that gives energy consumers the most bang for their buck. If the ongoing “energy transition” were serious, it would allow for more realistic timelines that stretch many decades into the future and the replacement of retiring coal plants more naturally with nuclear plants – instead of the premature retirements before suitable replacement capacity can even come online, as we have seen thus far.

    This piece originally appeared at EnergyBadBoys.substack.com and has been republished here with the authors’ permission.
     
  14. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    32,720
    Likes Received:
    30,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At some point, we must address the elephant in the room. The promotion of "green" energy is simply a nod to the Chinese and their need to promote and sell their technology that clearly produces 1) a national security supply chain problem and 2) a designed scarcity methodology. Face it. Plenty cheap energy is the enemy of Chinese green energy. Just like other options, NG, etc, it competes with Chinese tech. And as we've seen, anything that competes must be destroyed from the CCP perspective. That we have so many folks who seem entirely willing to shill for China here, it isn't surprising that threads like this are so vilified by those who come to criticize....
     
    AFM and Jack Hays like this.
  15. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    158,672
    Likes Received:
    68,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    after a site is no longer profitable, who pays for the cleanup, who pays the cost to store the waste?

    if there is a meltdown, who pays?
     
    Melb_muser and Media_Truth like this.
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's no reason the site can't be profitable for a very very long time. Clean-up and storage would be part of amortized cost to the utility.
    Meltdown? Highly unlikely with current technology, but in the event treated like any other large failure with government assistance to recover.
     
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    32,720
    Likes Received:
    30,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ask the same set of questions about solar/wind. Who pays for all of that cleanup and waste?
     
    AFM and Jack Hays like this.
  18. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    158,672
    Likes Received:
    68,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    never happens though, there is no big saving account for when they go bk to pay for cleanup
     
  19. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    158,672
    Likes Received:
    68,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it's not nuclear waste
     
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    32,720
    Likes Received:
    30,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL... You're right. It gets through out in open landfills.... Oh, and what happens to all the boat loads of lubricants that they require? You know, all that oil derivative waste....
     
  21. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    158,672
    Likes Received:
    68,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    doesn't even compare to nuclear waste
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  22. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s been 13 years, and Fukushima still hasn’t even begun to dismantle the 3 reactor cores. They are constantly seeking permission to dump the radioactive cooling water into the Pacific. What if they were told, “No, you can’t?”
    Are you aware that isotopes of Cesium from Fukushima have been found on the California coastline?

    2023
    https://apnews.com/article/japan-fu...ater-release-75becaaf68b7c3faf0121c459fdd25af

    The 130 tons of contaminated water created daily is collected, treated and then stored in tanks, which now number about 1,000 and cover much of the plant’s grounds. About 70% of the “ALPS-treated water,” named after the machines used to filter it, still contains Cesium and other radionuclides that exceed releasable limits.
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Misinformation is being replaced by accurate information.
    3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable
    upload_2024-7-30_14-34-11.png
    Department of Energy (.gov)
    https://www.energy.gov › articles › 3-reasons-why-nucle...

    Mar 31, 2021 — Nuclear is a zero-emission clean energy source. · Despite producing massive amounts of carbon-free power, nuclear energy produces more ...
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In this vision of the future, nuclear is not only cheaper, it is safer than renewables.
    Advanced nuclear energy: the safest and most renewable ...
    upload_2024-7-30_14-36-35.png
    ScienceDirect.com
    https://www.sciencedirect.com › article › abs › pii

    by TE Rehm · 2023 · Cited by 48 — Nuclear energy is much safer than solar and wind renewables and has a lower life cycle carbon footprint. The disadvantage of nuclear is its long-lived
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2024
  25. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All the nuclear facilities of the world should pitch-in the trillions of dollars needed to clean up Fukushima. Then all that cost can be added to the already MOST-EXPENSIVE-POWER-in-the-WORLD.
     

Share This Page