Germany and California could made a faster move to 100% clean power by adding instead of removing nuclear power

California and Germany could have mostly or completely decarbonized their electricity if they have invested in nuclear power instead of solar and wind renewables.

If Germany did not begin a nuclear power phase-out in 2011, then they would still have 131 Terawatt hours from nuclear power.

Germany could have built forty-six 1.6 GW EPR reactors at the $12.5 billion per reactor cost of the U.K.’s Hinkley Point C. This would be for the same spending that Germany has on solar and wind up to now and through 2025. Germany will have invested $580 billion in renewable energy and storage by 2025. This will not get Germany near 100% renewable. This will get Germany to 20% electricity from renewables.

Those forty-six EPRs operating at 90 percent capacity factor could be used to eliminate all coal, gas, and biomass electricity and the 150 terawatt-hours per year of wind and solar from its renewables investment. Germany could export 100 terawatt-hours of electricity to its neighbors (double 2017’s actual exports). The last 133 terawatt-hours could power 45 million electric cars.

California could have kept San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors in service and kept large hydro dam and geothermal electricity production.

California could have built twenty South Korean OPR1000 reactors. These could have cost $5 billion per reactor which is more than double the cost of construction in South Korea.

California could be producing 200 terawatt-hours of clean electricity — more than total in-state generation in 2016 and 97 percent of in-state generation in 2017.

Ontario has nearly carbon-free electricity

There are 14.2 million people in Ontario.

Nuclear power is key part of Ontario, Canada’s nearly carbon-free electricity.

Nuclear reactors contributed 73.3 % of Ontario’s total electrical power generated in-province.
98.1 % of Ontario-generated electricity was carbon-free.
Nuclear reactors contributed 74.8 % of Ontario’s carbon-free electricity.

Quebec has 8.5 million people and also has almost carbon-free electricity. Quebec mostly generated power from hydro dams.

Quebec might build more dams so they can sell electricity to New York and other US states that are shutting down nuclear reactors.

265 thoughts on “Germany and California could made a faster move to 100% clean power by adding instead of removing nuclear power”

  1. I have been saying this for literally years. The money spent on solar and wind could have transitioned Germany to CO2 free power and enabled a simpler transition to electric cars. It is easy math to do.

    Reply
  2. One could argue that the nuclear industry is trying to sell a product that the market just does not want… and the market is willing to pay a premium (higher energy costs) for what they really want

    Reply
  3. That’s an artifact of crony capitalism and over-regulation. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities, treating nuclear power like the commodity it is will happen.

    Reply
  4. I have been saying this for literally years.The money spent on solar and wind could have transitioned Germany to CO2 free power and enabled a simpler transition to electric cars. It is easy math to do.

    Reply
  5. One could argue that the nuclear industry is trying to sell a product that the market just does not want… and the market is willing to pay a premium (higher energy costs) for what they really want

    Reply
  6. That’s an artifact of crony capitalism and over-regulation. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities treating nuclear power like the commodity it is will happen.

    Reply
  7. California and Germany could have mostly or completely decarbonized their electricity if they have invested in nuclear power instead of solar and wind renewables. “”No shit! You’re pulling my leg.”””

    Reply
  8. You can add renewable much faster than you can add nuclear. And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location. If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste. There is a place for them as high capacity base load units but they have to get their capital cost down.

    Reply
  9. If only they used all this money to develop highly efficient, durable so all in all economically sound solar PV technology with solutions for recycling and cheap batteries, then all of this would have been worth it. This is just dumping money into subpar electricity production which will turn into unusable trash in a few decades.

    Reply
  10. Nuclear is not crazy expensive in Korea. Heck Korea can successfully export their reactor technology so clearly the US is doing something wrong.

    Reply
  11. Consumers only pay a premium for solar if they install it themselves without any tax credits. Apart from that market forces aren’t that involved. Quotas, subsidies, etc for renewable energy distort the market.

    Reply
  12. IN fairness to nuclear power Methane is crazy cheap in the US. Nuclear power also has an insane level of regulation. The good news is that the #1 thing every bureaucracy wants it to survive. If the NRC doesn’t move forward with Gen IV plants then there will be nothing to regulate and it will die. Therefore Gen IV plants will move forward.

    Reply
  13. Nobody cares how fast you can add renewables if they are not cost competitive and they require coal for backup (which Germany does). Here in CA all of our renewable power installations went to replacing SONGS. You can look at the charts and see that all the solar and wind power generated simply matched what two 1GWe reactors were producing when they were decommissioned. So while you talk about how it takes so long to make reactors you overlook that they produce a crazy level of carbon free power with excellent reliability. It is perfectly possible to create one reactor per year. In 15 years you would have 10 reactors (even at the snail’s pace of building we favor in the US), bulk pricing, and transition for CA away from C02. And doing things not because it is economical but because politics dictates the solution is a great argument against government. You can’t just say “sure our solution is an economic loser but it has political consensus!

    Reply
  14. And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location. ” In other words, engage in a objectively stupid public policy on the flimsiest of excuses? “If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste” They already have. Most of the cost of building reactors is because of government regulation.

    Reply
  15. For a while, California was doing something called ‘electron laundering’. Basically generating and sending over long distance power to BC, where it would get mixed with BC’s hydro power, then sent back at a markup as 100% ‘renewable energy’. Of course, in reality, a LOT OF that power ‘sent up’ was wasted in the long transmission. Same on the way back. Even more technically, most of that power was probably not really sent but just added to the grid, used by others locally while power plants further up near the BC/Washington State border put the juice in that went to BC for the laundering. But either way, it was all Virtue Signaling Greentarded BS. That’s all the Greentard ‘Movement’ is about. Objective Reality be dâmned. Thus, nuclear is BAD because it presents a solution and the Virtue Signalers don’t solutions…they want to have excuses for ‘feeling better’, instead.

    Reply
  16. You have that wrong. Lets see if I can get by Vukkle’s deficiencies. thoughtscapism(dot)com(slash)2017/11/27/nuclear-energy-is-the-fastest-and-lowest-cost-clean-energy-solution/

    Reply
  17. And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location. “”In other words”””” engage in a objectively stupid public policy on the flimsiest of excuses?””””If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste””””They already have. Most of the cost of building reactors is because of government regulation.”””

    Reply
  18. For a while California was doing something called ‘electron laundering’. Basically generating and sending over long distance power to BC where it would get mixed with BC’s hydro power then sent back at a markup as 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} ‘renewable energy’. Of course in reality a LOT OF that power ‘sent up’ was wasted in the long transmission. Same on the way back. Even more technically most of that power was probably not really sent but just added to the grid used by others locally while power plants further up near the BC/Washington State border put the juice in that went to BC for the laundering. But either way it was all Virtue Signaling Greentarded BS. That’s all the Greentard ‘Movement’ is about. Objective Reality be dâmned. Thus nuclear is BAD because it presents a solution and the Virtue Signalers don’t solutions…they want to have excuses for ‘feeling better’ instead.”

    Reply
  19. You have that wrong. Lets see if I can get by Vukkle’s deficiencies.thoughtscapism(dot)com(slash)2017/11/27/nuclear-energy-is-the-fastest-and-lowest-cost-clean-energy-solution/

    Reply
  20. But you can. And you can add them in small cheap increments as needed. When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. There goes that investment.

    Reply
  21. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities…” What do you mean by ‘when’? It has been ‘obvious’ for decades…yet it survives and even has been moving the size of government to ever bigger heights.

    Reply
  22. The NRC was created to do what its predecessor the AEC did not: Constrain the growth of nuclear power. The AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) was actually PRO nuclear power and actively promoted its development.

    Reply
  23. But you can. And you can add them in small cheap increments as needed. When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. There goes that investment.

    Reply
  24. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities…”” What do you mean by ‘when’? It has been ‘obvious’ for decades…yet it survives and even has been moving the size of government to ever bigger heights.”””

    Reply
  25. The NRC was created to do what its predecessor the AEC did not: Constrain the growth of nuclear power.The AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) was actually PRO nuclear power and actively promoted its development.

    Reply
  26. Someone’s tax credit for solar is a tax levied upon someone else.” Completely agree. The person who gets the credit sees a distorted market price.

    Reply
  27. I read some interview of the guy who ran that program. This was like six years ago or something. Anyway, he commented that if France were to try doing the same today: No way. He said that costs would be too high and the power of NIMBYism in France is also too high, compared to the early 80s anyway.

    Reply
  28. Solar panels currently have a useful lifetime of many decades… The possibility of this 100% scheme all depends on the development of cheap power storage mechanisms. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job and all the suitable valleys in the Sierras will need to be turned into covered pump hydro storage sites. They need to be covered because I doubt we’ll have enough water in the state to handle the evaporation if they are open.

    Reply
  29. And certain id!ots who could be mistaken for Moby’s because their lies and exaggerations are so grotesque and stupid, could have nothing to do with the Left’s continuing relative credibility, et tu troll? … Cupim spare ribs strip steak, chuck pork loin tail biltong drumstick pork belly pig leberkas. Pork belly drumstick pig, cupim short loin bacon capicola pork loin short ribs. Swine ham hock strip steak, spare ribs ball tip brisket meatloaf tri-tip ribeye burgdoggen pig hamburger venison. Prosciutto sirloin pancetta, pork loin jerky burgdoggen bacon filet mignon pastrami ham beef bresaola. Chicken tail doner ground round short loin prosciutto, cow andouille fatback pork ribeye kevin beef sirloin. Pork porchetta kevin prosciutto ribeye corned beef. … Burgdoggen brisket leberkas, beef ribs sausage pancetta capicola ground round. Frankfurter chicken tail filet mignon landjaeger ham hock tongue kielbasa biltong tenderloin. Ribeye jerky short loin, biltong bacon turkey bresaola fatback prosciutto doner pig cow pork chop chicken hamburger. Meatloaf jowl pastrami kevin venison alcatra frankfurter biltong doner beef ribs salami pork flank shank. Ribeye spare ribs andouille biltong bresaola ham porchetta shankle meatloaf kevin t-bone jerky tri-tip beef ribs. Shank tri-tip porchetta buffalo short loin. … Porchetta ribeye prosciutto picanha, pork chop strip steak swine pastrami landjaeger pork salami spare ribs tri-tip tenderloin drumstick. Jerky tail capicola cupim. Jowl pig ball tip, shankle pork loin bacon capicola frankfurter salami tail sirloin chicken. Kevin doner pancetta, shankle chicken ham burgdoggen tongue landjaeger ground round alcatra pork loin meatloaf.

    Reply
  30. Nope, never happened yet. ” When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. ” No, there are plants you can take offline, which will be more expensive than the base load plant.

    Reply
  31. Someone’s tax credit for solar is a tax levied upon someone else.””Completely agree. The person who gets the credit sees a distorted market price.”””

    Reply
  32. I read some interview of the guy who ran that program. This was like six years ago or something. Anyway he commented that if France were to try doing the same today: No way.He said that costs would be too high and the power of NIMBYism in France is also too high compared to the early 80s anyway.

    Reply
  33. Solar panels currently have a useful lifetime of many decades…The possibility of this 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} scheme all depends on the development of cheap power storage mechanisms. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job and all the suitable valleys in the Sierras will need to be turned into covered pump hydro storage sites. They need to be covered because I doubt we’ll have enough water in the state to handle the evaporation if they are open.

    Reply
  34. And certain id!ots who could be mistaken for Moby’s because their lies and exaggerations are so grotesque and stupid could have nothing to do with the Left’s continuing relative credibility et tu troll?…Cupim spare ribs strip steak chuck pork loin tail biltong drumstick pork belly pig leberkas. Pork belly drumstick pig cupim short loin bacon capicola pork loin short ribs. Swine ham hock strip steak spare ribs ball tip brisket meatloaf tri-tip ribeye burgdoggen pig hamburger venison. Prosciutto sirloin pancetta pork loin jerky burgdoggen bacon filet mignon pastrami ham beef bresaola. Chicken tail doner ground round short loin prosciutto cow andouille fatback pork ribeye kevin beef sirloin. Pork porchetta kevin prosciutto ribeye corned beef….Burgdoggen brisket leberkas beef ribs sausage pancetta capicola ground round. Frankfurter chicken tail filet mignon landjaeger ham hock tongue kielbasa biltong tenderloin. Ribeye jerky short loin biltong bacon turkey bresaola fatback prosciutto doner pig cow pork chop chicken hamburger. Meatloaf jowl pastrami kevin venison alcatra frankfurter biltong doner beef ribs salami pork flank shank. Ribeye spare ribs andouille biltong bresaola ham porchetta shankle meatloaf kevin t-bone jerky tri-tip beef ribs. Shank tri-tip porchetta buffalo short loin….Porchetta ribeye prosciutto picanha pork chop strip steak swine pastrami landjaeger pork salami spare ribs tri-tip tenderloin drumstick. Jerky tail capicola cupim. Jowl pig ball tip shankle pork loin bacon capicola frankfurter salami tail sirloin chicken. Kevin doner pancetta shankle chicken ham burgdoggen tongue landjaeger ground round alcatra pork loin meatloaf.

    Reply
  35. Nope never happened yet. When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. “”No”” there are plants you can take offline”” which will be more expensive than the base load plant.”””

    Reply
  36. Solar power generation in Northern Europe is absurd. It makes sense a lot of sense on the Greek Island where the alternative is diesel powered generators.

    Reply
  37. Phasing out nuclear does not make sense” It makes sense if you think CO2 driven global warming is less dangerous than nuclear power. Hmmmmmmmm.

    Reply
  38. Solar power generation in Northern Europe is absurd. It makes sense a lot of sense on the Greek Island where the alternative is diesel powered generators.

    Reply
  39. Phasing out nuclear does not make sense””It makes sense if you think CO2 driven global warming is less dangerous than nuclear power.Hmmmmmmmm.”””

    Reply
  40. In fact, construction of multiple reactors in a chainlike, orderly decision tree reduces cost per individual reactor, effectively reducing the cost of each prototype by 50% to 90%. This law is known in the defense industry, notwithstanding procurement cost inflation, which comes from the tendency of government to ask for newer and newer technology, creating regulation and uncertainty in the test and design process.

    Reply
  41. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job..” Do you mean: “I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job…economically”? See, they can do the job. Just that (last stats I’ve seen) it jacks up the KwH price involved to 40 cents/kw. Which of course, is uneconomical.

    Reply
  42. In fact construction of multiple reactors in a chainlike orderly decision tree reduces cost per individual reactor effectively reducing the cost of each prototype by 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} to 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. This law is known in the defense industry notwithstanding procurement cost inflation which comes from the tendency of government to ask for newer and newer technology creating regulation and uncertainty in the test and design process.

    Reply
  43. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job..””Do you mean: “”””I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job…economically””””?See”” they can do the job. Just that (last stats I’ve seen) it jacks up the KwH price involved to 40 cents/kw. Which of course”” is uneconomical.”””

    Reply
  44. If a tiny fraction of the money put into developing PV had been put into developing closed cycle CO2 Brayton heat engines, much more energy could have been generated, while lowering waste heat thermal pollution, and cutting the cost of turbomachinery.

    Reply
  45. If government must interfere with people’s economic decisions regarding energy production, it should dictate policy to engineers, and let them, rather than politicians decide what actions will be taken to implement that policy. So few politicians have any sort of technical background, it is impossible for them to make informed decisions on technical issues. It’s like having your congressman decide how to treat your heart disease, or cancer. It’s the blind leading the blind.

    Reply
  46. To support socialism you must be able to ignore reality. This skill”” is also put to other uses by the “”””progressive”””” community.”””

    Reply
  47. If government must interfere with people’s economic decisions regarding energy production it should dictate policy to engineers and let them rather than politicians decide what actions will be taken to implement that policy. So few politicians have any sort of technical background it is impossible for them to make informed decisions on technical issues. It’s like having your congressman decide how to treat your heart disease or cancer. It’s the blind leading the blind.

    Reply
  48. To support socialism you must be able to ignore reality. This “skill” is also put to other uses by the “progressive” community.

    Reply
  49. If a tiny fraction of the money put into developing PV had been put into developing closed cycle CO2 Brayton heat engines much more energy could have been generated while lowering waste heat thermal pollution and cutting the cost of turbomachinery.

    Reply
  50. Some of the numbers are wrong. Nuclear should include the cost of refueling, major refurbishments and disposing of the nuclear waste , dismantling of the plant and insurance against meltdown and the spread of radioactive material. And then there is the cost of fuel, on going monitoring and maintenance. And for renewable the capacity factor and the cost figures are for old installation, not for new and future installation. And the projected life span of the renewable plants are ridiculously low. There are no reason why the plants can’t last hundreds of years. The condition they are under are much milder than a nuclear power plant.

    Reply
  51. The transition is not the same as the final state. Wind and solar are cheaper than new nuke and getting cheaper every year. It is an invalid argument that renewable are more expensive because that argument is no longer true.

    Reply
  52. Government regulation that is meant to keep the reactor from melting down. As for inherently safe reactors no one is building them at least not yet. All current reactors have the same singular fault in that the lost of coolant will cause the reactor to meltdown. I know that nuclear power plants are built with a lot of redundant safety devices. But I also believe in Black Swan”” events”””” just ask the Japanese about them if you don’t want to take my word for them.”””

    Reply
  53. Some of the numbers are wrong. Nuclear should include the cost of refueling major refurbishments and disposing of the nuclear waste dismantling of the plant and insurance against meltdown and the spread of radioactive material. And then there is the cost of fuel on going monitoring and maintenance. And for renewable the capacity factor and the cost figures are for old installation not for new and future installation. And the projected life span of the renewable plants are ridiculously low. There are no reason why the plants can’t last hundreds of years. The condition they are under are much milder than a nuclear power plant.

    Reply
  54. The transition is not the same as the final state. Wind and solar are cheaper than new nuke and getting cheaper every year. It is an invalid argument that renewable are more expensive because that argument is no longer true.

    Reply
  55. Government regulation that is meant to keep the reactor from melting down. As for inherently safe reactors, no one is building them, at least not yet. All current reactors have the same singular fault in that the lost of coolant will cause the reactor to meltdown. I know that nuclear power plants are built with a lot of redundant safety devices. But I also believe in “Black Swan” events, just ask the Japanese about them if you don’t want to take my word for them.

    Reply
  56. There are complications to building nuclear in California. The main one is earthquakes. If you are going to build nuclear responsibly in California, then you need to build east of the San Andreas Fault. Trouble is, most reactors require a lot of water for cooling and there is not much water that far inland, at least in the south. And in the north they have less population and hydroelectric power and do not need nuclear. The only way left is floating reactors off the coast, preferably near neutrally buoyant and water tight…perhaps 150 feet underwater and tethered but with a lot of room to move if there was major techtonic activity. San Onofre was damaged. Operating it in a damaged state was dubious. They wanted to run it at reduced power, maybe that would have worked…but maybe it wouldn’t have. Diablo Canyon was upgraded to withstand earthquakes of 7.5 I think that is sufficient for the location. There is no good reason to shut that down. Maybe it should not have been built there, but with the upgrades, I see no issue with allowing it to continue operation. Is it expensive to operate? Yes, but that has nothing to do with the technology, just bloodsucking unions. Automate the thing. Then you probably need less than 50 people. Of course that would just make more people want to shut it down. And even if there was savings, it would not be passed down to consumers. The energy prices in California are about punishing people…total disconnect with actual production cost. Germany? Just stupid leadership. Nothing wrong with those reactors. California is actually well situated for energy storage. We could build lots of the train car potential kinetic storage fairly easy. We have hills and mountains that we could easily build the rails on. No need to wait for batteries that do not degrade and are made from cheap materials cheaply. The gravity trains are about 80% efficient which is better than water storage…and obviously does not require water

    Reply
  57. There are complications to building nuclear in California. The main one is earthquakes. If you are going to build nuclear responsibly in California then you need to build east of the San Andreas Fault. Trouble is most reactors require a lot of water for cooling and there is not much water that far inland at least in the south. And in the north they have less population and hydroelectric power and do not need nuclear. The only way left is floating reactors off the coast preferably near neutrally buoyant and water tight…perhaps 150 feet underwater and tethered but with a lot of room to move if there was major techtonic activity.San Onofre was damaged. Operating it in a damaged state was dubious. They wanted to run it at reduced power maybe that would have worked…but maybe it wouldn’t have. Diablo Canyon was upgraded to withstand earthquakes of 7.5 I think that is sufficient for the location. There is no good reason to shut that down. Maybe it should not have been built there but with the upgrades I see no issue with allowing it to continue operation. Is it expensive to operate? Yes but that has nothing to do with the technology just bloodsucking unions. Automate the thing. Then you probably need less than 50 people. Of course that would just make more people want to shut it down. And even if there was savings it would not be passed down to consumers.The energy prices in California are about punishing people…total disconnect with actual production cost.Germany? Just stupid leadership. Nothing wrong with those reactors. California is actually well situated for energy storage. We could build lots of the train car potential kinetic storage fairly easy. We have hills and mountains that we could easily build the rails on. No need to wait for batteries that do not degrade and are made from cheap materials cheaply.The gravity trains are about 80{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} efficient which i

    Reply
  58. All those costs (fuel, maintenance, upgrades, insurance, etc.) are included – it’s a business like any other – it involves amortization and accounting and all those good things. The only strange thing is that the utility pays for the fuel and it’s storage while on site but the Fed owns it and is paying for the casks and is responsible for the ultimate disposal (i.e. the Yucca Mtn. thing).

    Reply
  59. Automate the thing [Diablo]. Then you probably need less than 50 people.” I know you’re like genius millennial Mindbreaker, but that wouldn’t even cover the 5 crews of operations personnel required for 24/7.

    Reply
  60. All those costs (fuel maintenance upgrades insurance etc.) are included – it’s a business like any other – it involves amortization and accounting and all those good things. The only strange thing is that the utility pays for the fuel and it’s storage while on site but the Fed owns it and is paying for the casks and is responsible for the ultimate disposal (i.e. the Yucca Mtn. thing).

    Reply
  61. Automate the thing [Diablo]. Then you probably need less than 50 people.””I know you’re like genius millennial Mindbreaker”””” but that wouldn’t even cover the 5 crews of operations personnel required for 24/7.”””

    Reply
  62. All those costs (fuel, maintenance, upgrades, insurance, etc.) are included – it’s a business like any other – it involves amortization and accounting and all those good things. The only strange thing is that the utility pays for the fuel and it’s storage while on site but the Fed owns it and is paying for the casks and is responsible for the ultimate disposal (i.e. the Yucca Mtn. thing).

    Reply
  63. All those costs (fuel maintenance upgrades insurance etc.) are included – it’s a business like any other – it involves amortization and accounting and all those good things. The only strange thing is that the utility pays for the fuel and it’s storage while on site but the Fed owns it and is paying for the casks and is responsible for the ultimate disposal (i.e. the Yucca Mtn. thing).

    Reply
  64. Automate the thing [Diablo]. Then you probably need less than 50 people.” I know you’re like genius millennial Mindbreaker, but that wouldn’t even cover the 5 crews of operations personnel required for 24/7.

    Reply
  65. Automate the thing [Diablo]. Then you probably need less than 50 people.””I know you’re like genius millennial Mindbreaker”””” but that wouldn’t even cover the 5 crews of operations personnel required for 24/7.”””

    Reply
  66. There are complications to building nuclear in California. The main one is earthquakes. If you are going to build nuclear responsibly in California, then you need to build east of the San Andreas Fault. Trouble is, most reactors require a lot of water for cooling and there is not much water that far inland, at least in the south. And in the north they have less population and hydroelectric power and do not need nuclear. The only way left is floating reactors off the coast, preferably near neutrally buoyant and water tight…perhaps 150 feet underwater and tethered but with a lot of room to move if there was major techtonic activity. San Onofre was damaged. Operating it in a damaged state was dubious. They wanted to run it at reduced power, maybe that would have worked…but maybe it wouldn’t have. Diablo Canyon was upgraded to withstand earthquakes of 7.5 I think that is sufficient for the location. There is no good reason to shut that down. Maybe it should not have been built there, but with the upgrades, I see no issue with allowing it to continue operation. Is it expensive to operate? Yes, but that has nothing to do with the technology, just bloodsucking unions. Automate the thing. Then you probably need less than 50 people. Of course that would just make more people want to shut it down. And even if there was savings, it would not be passed down to consumers. The energy prices in California are about punishing people…total disconnect with actual production cost. Germany? Just stupid leadership. Nothing wrong with those reactors. California is actually well situated for energy storage. We could build lots of the train car potential kinetic storage fairly easy. We have hills and mountains that we could easily build the rails on. No need to wait for batteries that do not degrade and are made from cheap materials cheaply. The gravity trains are about 80% efficient which is better than water storage…and obviously does not require water

    Reply
  67. There are complications to building nuclear in California. The main one is earthquakes. If you are going to build nuclear responsibly in California then you need to build east of the San Andreas Fault. Trouble is most reactors require a lot of water for cooling and there is not much water that far inland at least in the south. And in the north they have less population and hydroelectric power and do not need nuclear. The only way left is floating reactors off the coast preferably near neutrally buoyant and water tight…perhaps 150 feet underwater and tethered but with a lot of room to move if there was major techtonic activity.San Onofre was damaged. Operating it in a damaged state was dubious. They wanted to run it at reduced power maybe that would have worked…but maybe it wouldn’t have. Diablo Canyon was upgraded to withstand earthquakes of 7.5 I think that is sufficient for the location. There is no good reason to shut that down. Maybe it should not have been built there but with the upgrades I see no issue with allowing it to continue operation. Is it expensive to operate? Yes but that has nothing to do with the technology just bloodsucking unions. Automate the thing. Then you probably need less than 50 people. Of course that would just make more people want to shut it down. And even if there was savings it would not be passed down to consumers.The energy prices in California are about punishing people…total disconnect with actual production cost.Germany? Just stupid leadership. Nothing wrong with those reactors. California is actually well situated for energy storage. We could build lots of the train car potential kinetic storage fairly easy. We have hills and mountains that we could easily build the rails on. No need to wait for batteries that do not degrade and are made from cheap materials cheaply.The gravity trains are about 80{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} efficient which i

    Reply
  68. All those costs (fuel, maintenance, upgrades, insurance, etc.) are included – it’s a business like any other – it involves amortization and accounting and all those good things. The only strange thing is that the utility pays for the fuel and it’s storage while on site but the Fed owns it and is paying for the casks and is responsible for the ultimate disposal (i.e. the Yucca Mtn. thing).

    Reply
  69. “Automate the thing [Diablo]. Then you probably need less than 50 people.”

    I know you’re like genius millennial Mindbreaker, but that wouldn’t even cover the 5 crews of operations personnel required for 24/7.

    Reply
  70. There are complications to building nuclear in California. The main one is earthquakes. If you are going to build nuclear responsibly in California, then you need to build east of the San Andreas Fault. Trouble is, most reactors require a lot of water for cooling and there is not much water that far inland, at least in the south. And in the north they have less population and hydroelectric power and do not need nuclear. The only way left is floating reactors off the coast, preferably near neutrally buoyant and water tight…perhaps 150 feet underwater and tethered but with a lot of room to move if there was major techtonic activity.

    San Onofre was damaged. Operating it in a damaged state was dubious. They wanted to run it at reduced power, maybe that would have worked…but maybe it wouldn’t have. Diablo Canyon was upgraded to withstand earthquakes of 7.5 I think that is sufficient for the location. There is no good reason to shut that down. Maybe it should not have been built there, but with the upgrades, I see no issue with allowing it to continue operation. Is it expensive to operate? Yes, but that has nothing to do with the technology, just bloodsucking unions. Automate the thing. Then you probably need less than 50 people. Of course that would just make more people want to shut it down. And even if there was savings, it would not be passed down to consumers.

    The energy prices in California are about punishing people…total disconnect with actual production cost.

    Germany? Just stupid leadership. Nothing wrong with those reactors.

    California is actually well situated for energy storage. We could build lots of the train car potential kinetic storage fairly easy. We have hills and mountains that we could easily build the rails on. No need to wait for batteries that do not degrade and are made from cheap materials cheaply.
    The gravity trains are about 80% efficient which is better than water storage…and obviously does not require water and making lakes, dams and such.

    Reply
  71. Government regulation that is meant to keep the reactor from melting down. As for inherently safe reactors, no one is building them, at least not yet. All current reactors have the same singular fault in that the lost of coolant will cause the reactor to meltdown. I know that nuclear power plants are built with a lot of redundant safety devices. But I also believe in “Black Swan” events, just ask the Japanese about them if you don’t want to take my word for them.

    Reply
  72. Government regulation that is meant to keep the reactor from melting down. As for inherently safe reactors no one is building them at least not yet. All current reactors have the same singular fault in that the lost of coolant will cause the reactor to meltdown. I know that nuclear power plants are built with a lot of redundant safety devices. But I also believe in Black Swan”” events”””” just ask the Japanese about them if you don’t want to take my word for them.”””

    Reply
  73. Some of the numbers are wrong. Nuclear should include the cost of refueling, major refurbishments and disposing of the nuclear waste , dismantling of the plant and insurance against meltdown and the spread of radioactive material. And then there is the cost of fuel, on going monitoring and maintenance. And for renewable the capacity factor and the cost figures are for old installation, not for new and future installation. And the projected life span of the renewable plants are ridiculously low. There are no reason why the plants can’t last hundreds of years. The condition they are under are much milder than a nuclear power plant.

    Reply
  74. Some of the numbers are wrong. Nuclear should include the cost of refueling major refurbishments and disposing of the nuclear waste dismantling of the plant and insurance against meltdown and the spread of radioactive material. And then there is the cost of fuel on going monitoring and maintenance. And for renewable the capacity factor and the cost figures are for old installation not for new and future installation. And the projected life span of the renewable plants are ridiculously low. There are no reason why the plants can’t last hundreds of years. The condition they are under are much milder than a nuclear power plant.

    Reply
  75. The transition is not the same as the final state. Wind and solar are cheaper than new nuke and getting cheaper every year. It is an invalid argument that renewable are more expensive because that argument is no longer true.

    Reply
  76. The transition is not the same as the final state. Wind and solar are cheaper than new nuke and getting cheaper every year. It is an invalid argument that renewable are more expensive because that argument is no longer true.

    Reply
  77. Government regulation that is meant to keep the reactor from melting down. As for inherently safe reactors, no one is building them, at least not yet. All current reactors have the same singular fault in that the lost of coolant will cause the reactor to meltdown. I know that nuclear power plants are built with a lot of redundant safety devices. But I also believe in “Black Swan” events, just ask the Japanese about them if you don’t want to take my word for them.

    Reply
  78. Some of the numbers are wrong. Nuclear should include the cost of refueling, major refurbishments and disposing of the nuclear waste , dismantling of the plant and insurance against meltdown and the spread of radioactive material. And then there is the cost of fuel, on going monitoring and maintenance. And for renewable the capacity factor and the cost figures are for old installation, not for new and future installation. And the projected life span of the renewable plants are ridiculously low. There are no reason why the plants can’t last hundreds of years. The condition they are under are much milder than a nuclear power plant.

    Reply
  79. The transition is not the same as the final state. Wind and solar are cheaper than new nuke and getting cheaper every year. It is an invalid argument that renewable are more expensive because that argument is no longer true.

    Reply
  80. If a tiny fraction of the money put into developing PV had been put into developing closed cycle CO2 Brayton heat engines, much more energy could have been generated, while lowering waste heat thermal pollution, and cutting the cost of turbomachinery.

    Reply
  81. If a tiny fraction of the money put into developing PV had been put into developing closed cycle CO2 Brayton heat engines much more energy could have been generated while lowering waste heat thermal pollution and cutting the cost of turbomachinery.

    Reply
  82. To support socialism you must be able to ignore reality. This “skill” is also put to other uses by the “progressive” community.

    Reply
  83. To support socialism you must be able to ignore reality. This skill”” is also put to other uses by the “”””progressive”””” community.”””

    Reply
  84. If government must interfere with people’s economic decisions regarding energy production, it should dictate policy to engineers, and let them, rather than politicians decide what actions will be taken to implement that policy. So few politicians have any sort of technical background, it is impossible for them to make informed decisions on technical issues. It’s like having your congressman decide how to treat your heart disease, or cancer. It’s the blind leading the blind.

    Reply
  85. If government must interfere with people’s economic decisions regarding energy production it should dictate policy to engineers and let them rather than politicians decide what actions will be taken to implement that policy. So few politicians have any sort of technical background it is impossible for them to make informed decisions on technical issues. It’s like having your congressman decide how to treat your heart disease or cancer. It’s the blind leading the blind.

    Reply
  86. In fact, construction of multiple reactors in a chainlike, orderly decision tree reduces cost per individual reactor, effectively reducing the cost of each prototype by 50% to 90%. This law is known in the defense industry, notwithstanding procurement cost inflation, which comes from the tendency of government to ask for newer and newer technology, creating regulation and uncertainty in the test and design process.

    Reply
  87. In fact construction of multiple reactors in a chainlike orderly decision tree reduces cost per individual reactor effectively reducing the cost of each prototype by 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} to 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. This law is known in the defense industry notwithstanding procurement cost inflation which comes from the tendency of government to ask for newer and newer technology creating regulation and uncertainty in the test and design process.

    Reply
  88. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job..” Do you mean: “I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job…economically”? See, they can do the job. Just that (last stats I’ve seen) it jacks up the KwH price involved to 40 cents/kw. Which of course, is uneconomical.

    Reply
  89. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job..””Do you mean: “”””I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job…economically””””?See”” they can do the job. Just that (last stats I’ve seen) it jacks up the KwH price involved to 40 cents/kw. Which of course”” is uneconomical.”””

    Reply
  90. Solar power generation in Northern Europe is absurd. It makes sense a lot of sense on the Greek Island where the alternative is diesel powered generators.

    Reply
  91. Solar power generation in Northern Europe is absurd. It makes sense a lot of sense on the Greek Island where the alternative is diesel powered generators.

    Reply
  92. Phasing out nuclear does not make sense” It makes sense if you think CO2 driven global warming is less dangerous than nuclear power. Hmmmmmmmm.

    Reply
  93. Phasing out nuclear does not make sense””It makes sense if you think CO2 driven global warming is less dangerous than nuclear power.Hmmmmmmmm.”””

    Reply
  94. Someone’s tax credit for solar is a tax levied upon someone else.” Completely agree. The person who gets the credit sees a distorted market price.

    Reply
  95. Someone’s tax credit for solar is a tax levied upon someone else.””Completely agree. The person who gets the credit sees a distorted market price.”””

    Reply
  96. I read some interview of the guy who ran that program. This was like six years ago or something. Anyway, he commented that if France were to try doing the same today: No way. He said that costs would be too high and the power of NIMBYism in France is also too high, compared to the early 80s anyway.

    Reply
  97. I read some interview of the guy who ran that program. This was like six years ago or something. Anyway he commented that if France were to try doing the same today: No way.He said that costs would be too high and the power of NIMBYism in France is also too high compared to the early 80s anyway.

    Reply
  98. Solar panels currently have a useful lifetime of many decades… The possibility of this 100% scheme all depends on the development of cheap power storage mechanisms. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job and all the suitable valleys in the Sierras will need to be turned into covered pump hydro storage sites. They need to be covered because I doubt we’ll have enough water in the state to handle the evaporation if they are open.

    Reply
  99. Solar panels currently have a useful lifetime of many decades…The possibility of this 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} scheme all depends on the development of cheap power storage mechanisms. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job and all the suitable valleys in the Sierras will need to be turned into covered pump hydro storage sites. They need to be covered because I doubt we’ll have enough water in the state to handle the evaporation if they are open.

    Reply
  100. And certain id!ots who could be mistaken for Moby’s because their lies and exaggerations are so grotesque and stupid, could have nothing to do with the Left’s continuing relative credibility, et tu troll? … Cupim spare ribs strip steak, chuck pork loin tail biltong drumstick pork belly pig leberkas. Pork belly drumstick pig, cupim short loin bacon capicola pork loin short ribs. Swine ham hock strip steak, spare ribs ball tip brisket meatloaf tri-tip ribeye burgdoggen pig hamburger venison. Prosciutto sirloin pancetta, pork loin jerky burgdoggen bacon filet mignon pastrami ham beef bresaola. Chicken tail doner ground round short loin prosciutto, cow andouille fatback pork ribeye kevin beef sirloin. Pork porchetta kevin prosciutto ribeye corned beef. … Burgdoggen brisket leberkas, beef ribs sausage pancetta capicola ground round. Frankfurter chicken tail filet mignon landjaeger ham hock tongue kielbasa biltong tenderloin. Ribeye jerky short loin, biltong bacon turkey bresaola fatback prosciutto doner pig cow pork chop chicken hamburger. Meatloaf jowl pastrami kevin venison alcatra frankfurter biltong doner beef ribs salami pork flank shank. Ribeye spare ribs andouille biltong bresaola ham porchetta shankle meatloaf kevin t-bone jerky tri-tip beef ribs. Shank tri-tip porchetta buffalo short loin. … Porchetta ribeye prosciutto picanha, pork chop strip steak swine pastrami landjaeger pork salami spare ribs tri-tip tenderloin drumstick. Jerky tail capicola cupim. Jowl pig ball tip, shankle pork loin bacon capicola frankfurter salami tail sirloin chicken. Kevin doner pancetta, shankle chicken ham burgdoggen tongue landjaeger ground round alcatra pork loin meatloaf.

    Reply
  101. And certain id!ots who could be mistaken for Moby’s because their lies and exaggerations are so grotesque and stupid could have nothing to do with the Left’s continuing relative credibility et tu troll?…Cupim spare ribs strip steak chuck pork loin tail biltong drumstick pork belly pig leberkas. Pork belly drumstick pig cupim short loin bacon capicola pork loin short ribs. Swine ham hock strip steak spare ribs ball tip brisket meatloaf tri-tip ribeye burgdoggen pig hamburger venison. Prosciutto sirloin pancetta pork loin jerky burgdoggen bacon filet mignon pastrami ham beef bresaola. Chicken tail doner ground round short loin prosciutto cow andouille fatback pork ribeye kevin beef sirloin. Pork porchetta kevin prosciutto ribeye corned beef….Burgdoggen brisket leberkas beef ribs sausage pancetta capicola ground round. Frankfurter chicken tail filet mignon landjaeger ham hock tongue kielbasa biltong tenderloin. Ribeye jerky short loin biltong bacon turkey bresaola fatback prosciutto doner pig cow pork chop chicken hamburger. Meatloaf jowl pastrami kevin venison alcatra frankfurter biltong doner beef ribs salami pork flank shank. Ribeye spare ribs andouille biltong bresaola ham porchetta shankle meatloaf kevin t-bone jerky tri-tip beef ribs. Shank tri-tip porchetta buffalo short loin….Porchetta ribeye prosciutto picanha pork chop strip steak swine pastrami landjaeger pork salami spare ribs tri-tip tenderloin drumstick. Jerky tail capicola cupim. Jowl pig ball tip shankle pork loin bacon capicola frankfurter salami tail sirloin chicken. Kevin doner pancetta shankle chicken ham burgdoggen tongue landjaeger ground round alcatra pork loin meatloaf.

    Reply
  102. Nope, never happened yet. ” When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. ” No, there are plants you can take offline, which will be more expensive than the base load plant.

    Reply
  103. Nope never happened yet. When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. “”No”” there are plants you can take offline”” which will be more expensive than the base load plant.”””

    Reply
  104. But you can. And you can add them in small cheap increments as needed. When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. There goes that investment.

    Reply
  105. But you can. And you can add them in small cheap increments as needed. When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. There goes that investment.

    Reply
  106. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities…” What do you mean by ‘when’? It has been ‘obvious’ for decades…yet it survives and even has been moving the size of government to ever bigger heights.

    Reply
  107. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities…”” What do you mean by ‘when’? It has been ‘obvious’ for decades…yet it survives and even has been moving the size of government to ever bigger heights.”””

    Reply
  108. The NRC was created to do what its predecessor the AEC did not: Constrain the growth of nuclear power. The AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) was actually PRO nuclear power and actively promoted its development.

    Reply
  109. The NRC was created to do what its predecessor the AEC did not: Constrain the growth of nuclear power.The AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) was actually PRO nuclear power and actively promoted its development.

    Reply
  110. And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location. ” In other words, engage in a objectively stupid public policy on the flimsiest of excuses? “If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste” They already have. Most of the cost of building reactors is because of government regulation.

    Reply
  111. And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location. “”In other words”””” engage in a objectively stupid public policy on the flimsiest of excuses?””””If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste””””They already have. Most of the cost of building reactors is because of government regulation.”””

    Reply
  112. For a while, California was doing something called ‘electron laundering’. Basically generating and sending over long distance power to BC, where it would get mixed with BC’s hydro power, then sent back at a markup as 100% ‘renewable energy’. Of course, in reality, a LOT OF that power ‘sent up’ was wasted in the long transmission. Same on the way back. Even more technically, most of that power was probably not really sent but just added to the grid, used by others locally while power plants further up near the BC/Washington State border put the juice in that went to BC for the laundering. But either way, it was all Virtue Signaling Greentarded BS. That’s all the Greentard ‘Movement’ is about. Objective Reality be dâmned. Thus, nuclear is BAD because it presents a solution and the Virtue Signalers don’t solutions…they want to have excuses for ‘feeling better’, instead.

    Reply
  113. For a while California was doing something called ‘electron laundering’. Basically generating and sending over long distance power to BC where it would get mixed with BC’s hydro power then sent back at a markup as 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} ‘renewable energy’. Of course in reality a LOT OF that power ‘sent up’ was wasted in the long transmission. Same on the way back. Even more technically most of that power was probably not really sent but just added to the grid used by others locally while power plants further up near the BC/Washington State border put the juice in that went to BC for the laundering. But either way it was all Virtue Signaling Greentarded BS. That’s all the Greentard ‘Movement’ is about. Objective Reality be dâmned. Thus nuclear is BAD because it presents a solution and the Virtue Signalers don’t solutions…they want to have excuses for ‘feeling better’ instead.”

    Reply
  114. You have that wrong. Lets see if I can get by Vukkle’s deficiencies. thoughtscapism(dot)com(slash)2017/11/27/nuclear-energy-is-the-fastest-and-lowest-cost-clean-energy-solution/

    Reply
  115. You have that wrong. Lets see if I can get by Vukkle’s deficiencies.thoughtscapism(dot)com(slash)2017/11/27/nuclear-energy-is-the-fastest-and-lowest-cost-clean-energy-solution/

    Reply
  116. If a tiny fraction of the money put into developing PV had been put into developing closed cycle CO2 Brayton heat engines, much more energy could have been generated, while lowering waste heat thermal pollution, and cutting the cost of turbomachinery.

    Reply
  117. If government must interfere with people’s economic decisions regarding energy production, it should dictate policy to engineers, and let them, rather than politicians decide what actions will be taken to implement that policy. So few politicians have any sort of technical background, it is impossible for them to make informed decisions on technical issues. It’s like having your congressman decide how to treat your heart disease, or cancer. It’s the blind leading the blind.

    Reply
  118. If only they used all this money to develop highly efficient, durable so all in all economically sound solar PV technology with solutions for recycling and cheap batteries, then all of this would have been worth it. This is just dumping money into subpar electricity production which will turn into unusable trash in a few decades.

    Reply
  119. If only they used all this money to develop highly efficient durable so all in all economically sound solar PV technology with solutions for recycling and cheap batteries then all of this would have been worth it.This is just dumping money into subpar electricity production which will turn into unusable trash in a few decades.

    Reply
  120. Nuclear is not crazy expensive in Korea. Heck Korea can successfully export their reactor technology so clearly the US is doing something wrong.

    Reply
  121. Nuclear is not crazy expensive in Korea. Heck Korea can successfully export their reactor technology so clearly the US is doing something wrong.

    Reply
  122. Consumers only pay a premium for solar if they install it themselves without any tax credits. Apart from that market forces aren’t that involved. Quotas, subsidies, etc for renewable energy distort the market.

    Reply
  123. Consumers only pay a premium for solar if they install it themselves without any tax credits.Apart from that market forces aren’t that involved. Quotas subsidies etc for renewable energy distort the market.

    Reply
  124. IN fairness to nuclear power Methane is crazy cheap in the US. Nuclear power also has an insane level of regulation. The good news is that the #1 thing every bureaucracy wants it to survive. If the NRC doesn’t move forward with Gen IV plants then there will be nothing to regulate and it will die. Therefore Gen IV plants will move forward.

    Reply
  125. IN fairness to nuclear power Methane is crazy cheap in the US. Nuclear power also has an insane level of regulation.The good news is that the #1 thing every bureaucracy wants it to survive. If the NRC doesn’t move forward with Gen IV plants then there will be nothing to regulate and it will die. Therefore Gen IV plants will move forward.

    Reply
  126. I have been saying this for literally years. The money spent on solar and wind could have transitioned Germany to CO2 free power and enabled a simpler transition to electric cars. It is easy math to do.

    Reply
  127. I have been saying this for literally years.The money spent on solar and wind could have transitioned Germany to CO2 free power and enabled a simpler transition to electric cars. It is easy math to do.

    Reply
  128. One could argue that the nuclear industry is trying to sell a product that the market just does not want… and the market is willing to pay a premium (higher energy costs) for what they really want

    Reply
  129. One could argue that the nuclear industry is trying to sell a product that the market just does not want… and the market is willing to pay a premium (higher energy costs) for what they really want

    Reply
  130. That’s an artifact of crony capitalism and over-regulation. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities, treating nuclear power like the commodity it is will happen.

    Reply
  131. That’s an artifact of crony capitalism and over-regulation. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities treating nuclear power like the commodity it is will happen.

    Reply
  132. California and Germany could have mostly or completely decarbonized their electricity if they have invested in nuclear power instead of solar and wind renewables. ” No shit! You’re pulling my leg.

    Reply
  133. California and Germany could have mostly or completely decarbonized their electricity if they have invested in nuclear power instead of solar and wind renewables. “”No shit! You’re pulling my leg.”””

    Reply
  134. You can add renewable much faster than you can add nuclear. And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location. If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste. There is a place for them as high capacity base load units but they have to get their capital cost down.

    Reply
  135. You can add renewable much faster than you can add nuclear. And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location. If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste. There is a place for them as high capacity base load units but they have to get their capital cost down.

    Reply
  136. In fact, construction of multiple reactors in a chainlike, orderly decision tree reduces cost per individual reactor, effectively reducing the cost of each prototype by 50% to 90%. This law is known in the defense industry, notwithstanding procurement cost inflation, which comes from the tendency of government to ask for newer and newer technology, creating regulation and uncertainty in the test and design process.

    Reply
  137. “I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job..”

    Do you mean: “I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job…economically”?

    See, they can do the job. Just that (last stats I’ve seen) it jacks up the KwH price involved to 40 cents/kw. Which of course, is uneconomical.

    Reply
  138. I read some interview of the guy who ran that program. This was like six years ago or something.

    Anyway, he commented that if France were to try doing the same today: No way.

    He said that costs would be too high and the power of NIMBYism in France is also too high, compared to the early 80s anyway.

    Reply
  139. Solar panels currently have a useful lifetime of many decades…

    The possibility of this 100% scheme all depends on the development of cheap power storage mechanisms. I’m thinking batteries won’t ever be up to the job and all the suitable valleys in the Sierras will need to be turned into covered pump hydro storage sites. They need to be covered because I doubt we’ll have enough water in the state to handle the evaporation if they are open.

    Reply
  140. And certain id!ots who could be mistaken for Moby’s because their lies and exaggerations are so grotesque and stupid, could have nothing to do with the Left’s continuing relative credibility, et tu troll?

    Cupim spare ribs strip steak, chuck pork loin tail biltong drumstick pork belly pig leberkas. Pork belly drumstick pig, cupim short loin bacon capicola pork loin short ribs. Swine ham hock strip steak, spare ribs ball tip brisket meatloaf tri-tip ribeye burgdoggen pig hamburger venison. Prosciutto sirloin pancetta, pork loin jerky burgdoggen bacon filet mignon pastrami ham beef bresaola. Chicken tail doner ground round short loin prosciutto, cow andouille fatback pork ribeye kevin beef sirloin. Pork porchetta kevin prosciutto ribeye corned beef.

    Burgdoggen brisket leberkas, beef ribs sausage pancetta capicola ground round. Frankfurter chicken tail filet mignon landjaeger ham hock tongue kielbasa biltong tenderloin. Ribeye jerky short loin, biltong bacon turkey bresaola fatback prosciutto doner pig cow pork chop chicken hamburger. Meatloaf jowl pastrami kevin venison alcatra frankfurter biltong doner beef ribs salami pork flank shank. Ribeye spare ribs andouille biltong bresaola ham porchetta shankle meatloaf kevin t-bone jerky tri-tip beef ribs. Shank tri-tip porchetta buffalo short loin.

    Porchetta ribeye prosciutto picanha, pork chop strip steak swine pastrami landjaeger pork salami spare ribs tri-tip tenderloin drumstick. Jerky tail capicola cupim. Jowl pig ball tip, shankle pork loin bacon capicola frankfurter salami tail sirloin chicken. Kevin doner pancetta, shankle chicken ham burgdoggen tongue landjaeger ground round alcatra pork loin meatloaf.

    Reply
  141. Nope, never happened yet.

    ” When you add a 1G power plant some other power plants have to be taken offline. ”

    No, there are plants you can take offline, which will be more expensive than the base load plant.

    Reply
  142. ” When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities…”

    What do you mean by ‘when’? It has been ‘obvious’ for decades…yet it survives and even has been moving the size of government to ever bigger heights.

    Reply
  143. The NRC was created to do what its predecessor the AEC did not: Constrain the growth of nuclear power.

    The AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) was actually PRO nuclear power and actively promoted its development.

    Reply
  144. “And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location. ”

    In other words, engage in a objectively stupid public policy on the flimsiest of excuses?

    “If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste”

    They already have. Most of the cost of building reactors is because of government regulation.

    Reply
  145. For a while, California was doing something called ‘electron laundering’. Basically generating and sending over long distance power to BC, where it would get mixed with BC’s hydro power, then sent back at a markup as 100% ‘renewable energy’.

    Of course, in reality, a LOT OF that power ‘sent up’ was wasted in the long transmission. Same on the way back. Even more technically, most of that power was probably not really sent but just added to the grid, used by others locally while power plants further up near the BC/Washington State border put the juice in that went to BC for the laundering.

    But either way, it was all Virtue Signaling Greentarded BS.

    That’s all the Greentard ‘Movement’ is about. Objective Reality be dâmned.

    Thus, nuclear is BAD because it presents a solution and the Virtue Signalers don’t solutions…they want to have excuses for ‘feeling better’, instead.

    Reply
  146. You have that wrong. Lets see if I can get by Vukkle’s deficiencies.
    thoughtscapism(dot)com(slash)2017/11/27/nuclear-energy-is-the-fastest-and-lowest-cost-clean-energy-solution/

    Reply
  147. If only they used all this money to develop highly efficient, durable so all in all economically sound solar PV technology with solutions for recycling and cheap batteries, then all of this would have been worth it.

    This is just dumping money into subpar electricity production which will turn into unusable trash in a few decades.

    Reply
  148. Consumers only pay a premium for solar if they install it themselves without any tax credits.

    Apart from that market forces aren’t that involved. Quotas, subsidies, etc for renewable energy distort the market.

    Reply
  149. IN fairness to nuclear power Methane is crazy cheap in the US. Nuclear power also has an insane level of regulation.

    The good news is that the #1 thing every bureaucracy wants it to survive. If the NRC doesn’t move forward with Gen IV plants then there will be nothing to regulate and it will die. Therefore Gen IV plants will move forward.

    Reply
  150. Nobody cares how fast you can add renewables if they are not cost competitive and they require coal for backup (which Germany does).

    Here in CA all of our renewable power installations went to replacing SONGS. You can look at the charts and see that all the solar and wind power generated simply matched what two 1GWe reactors were producing when they were decommissioned.

    So while you talk about how it takes so long to make reactors you overlook that they produce a crazy level of carbon free power with excellent reliability. It is perfectly possible to create one reactor per year. In 15 years you would have 10 reactors (even at the snail’s pace of building we favor in the US), bulk pricing, and transition for CA away from C02.

    And doing things not because it is economical but because politics dictates the solution is a great argument against government. You can’t just say “sure our solution is an economic loser but it has political consensus!”

    Reply
  151. I have been saying this for literally years.

    The money spent on solar and wind could have transitioned Germany to CO2 free power and enabled a simpler transition to electric cars. It is easy math to do.

    Reply
  152. One could argue that the nuclear industry is trying to sell a product that the market just does not want… and the market is willing to pay a premium (higher energy costs) for what they really want

    Reply
  153. That’s an artifact of crony capitalism and over-regulation. When it becomes obvious we cannot afford Leftism and it’s stupidities, treating nuclear power like the commodity it is will happen.

    Reply
  154. ” California and Germany could have mostly or completely decarbonized their electricity if they have invested in nuclear power instead of solar and wind renewables. ”

    No shit! You’re pulling my leg.

    Reply
  155. You can add renewable much faster than you can add nuclear. And it doesn’t make any sense to fight the political head winds that nuclear has in those two location.

    If the nuclear industry wants a place in the future they have to focus on developing cheap inherently safe reactors that produce minimal waste. There is a place for them as high capacity base load units but they have to get their capital cost down.

    Reply

Leave a Comment