Why Nuclear Power Is Cheaper Than Renewables

Your claim has been shown to be false.

 

Please explain what is false.

 

Nuclear power is the cheapest, not the most expensive. Please see #1.

 

This is from your own link —-«
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. »

And there is not one word in your link about waste products with half- lives of hundreds of thousands of years.

And there is not one word in your post about the Fukushima, 13 years later, and the fact that dismantling of the 3 cores hasn’t even started.

These people are Nuclear propagandists. They expect everybody to pay their exorbitant costs, at the same time, ignoring the horrid history.

Nowadays, the world can install renewables with battery backup for far less cost than nuclear power.

 

You stopped quoting too soon.
"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."

And no, renewables with battery back-up cost more; that's the point.

 

As has been shown the upfront costs have been manufactured by Malthusian politicians and regulators. Nuclear energy is the safest form of energy available.

 

Yes. Even with the exorbitant and unnecessary up front costs forced by Malthusian politicians and regulators it is still the cheapest. Nuclear has an eROI of ~ 70 compared to wind and solar at an eROI of less than 5.

 

Nuclear waste disposal is trivial. The solutions have been known for decades. The issue is politics.

 

The decision not to recommission the Fukushima reactors is political. As they sit they pose no safety hazards. The partially melted fuel rods are fully isolated and monitored in the primary and secondary containment chambers. The reason for the partial meltdown was the decision (for unknown reasons) decades ago not to retrofit the reactors with a gravity fed emergency core cooling system.

 

yeah, we can put it in your backyard, not mine

 

Who has suggested anyone’s backyard?

 

why would you not want Nuclear waste in your back yard?

when the rich set up nuclear plants in their own cities, let me know

 

There are nuclear plants near many cities.
I live 25 miles from one.

 

Why would you suggest that nuclear waste be permanently stored in people’s backyards?

There are many nuclear plants close to large cities with rich people residing in them.

 

So where are you going to get the large, continuous power to drive the world, if not for nuclear.
To build the battery/renewable equivalent will be just as, if not more expensive and 7/24 coverage comprises a humongous and complex network.
There has been tremendous progress in building more compact, more efficient nuke plants and more efficient recovery processes for "spent" fuel.

 

so is your energy bill cheap?

 

Yup. The nuclear plants are part of a multi-sourced grid. Costs driven up a little in recent years by blocked natural gas pipeline projects and off-shore wind farm investments. The nuclear component is the price-stabilizing factor.

 

And look at the price of electrical energy in Germany which is 3X the average in the US. They have invested in wind and shut down nuclear.

 

You’re just understating the actual seriousness of the situation, which is the release of radioactive cooling water. In massive quantities into the Pacific. You’re also manufacturing excuses for the pathetic industry. There are undoubtedly thousands of equally unsafe installations in nuclear plants around the world, and they are “accidents-waiting-to-happen”

 

What massive quantities of radioactive cooling water? Nuclear energy is the safest energy source available to man.

 

Nuclear power is coming to Wyoming.
Is the Future of Nuclear Power in the Wilds of Wyoming?
By David Wojick
It is early days, but the nuclear future looms large for Wyoming and the world. To nuke or not to nuke; that is the question. . . .

 

The data are conclusive.
Grading the Grid: Natural Gas and Nuclear Most Affordable
Mackinac Center

 

The numbers are clear: The future belongs to gas and nuclear power.
Tangled Comparisons: Renewables Versus Fossil Fuels
Norman Rogers, RCEnergy

We are often told that wind and solar, if not cheaper, are at least cost competitive with fossil fuels. Dead wrong! Wind or solar costs around five times more per megawatt hour compared to, for example, natural gas.

We are told that wind and solar will save us from a climate catastrophe. If there is a looming climate catastrophe, the only thing that will save us is nuclear power. Wind and solar are incredibly expensive methods of reducing CO2 emissions. The more wind and solar you build, the cost of removing CO2 increases disproportionately.

The U.S. has wasted $1.5 trillion on wind and solar and for that money only a little more than 10% of our electricity comes from wind and solar.

Fossil fuels are not dirty. Modern natural gas or coal plants are environmentally pristine. CO2 is not a pollutant, but an aerial plant food that is greening the Earth. CO2 makes plants grow faster with less water.

Wind or solar electricity is not worth what it costs to create it. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That is a generally accepted economic principle. . . .

 

just think if we had spent the 10+ trillion we spend on the Republicans wars in the Middle East on solar and wind power