America’s neglect of nuclear energy has weakened our global influence(thehill.com)
thehill.com
America’s neglect of nuclear energy has weakened our global influence
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3488215-americas-neglect-of-nuclear-energy-has-weakened-our-global-influence/
2 comments
More accurately, "There is no scenario in which building nukes produces economically competitive power, so there is no value in a capacity to build them." We will need capacity to decommission them for quite some time to come. Each one decommissioned is a $billion not available to spend adding 10+ GW of renewables, but patching them up would cost even more.
"Neglecting" nuclear energy is the right thing to do. Nuclear is losing the economic competition. We should be pushing full speed ahead on renewables and storage. Those other countries who supposedly want to buy US nuclear tech should be buying US (or other) renewable and storage tech instead.
There is a major problem with renewables + batteries. You have to determine the amount of storage and risk not having enough power if you do not have enough wind and solar. If we have batteries to cover 1 full week of no generation what happens if we aren't able to get enough wind and solar within the week? With nuclear you can run it day or night, rain or shine. It is reliable. Discounting nuclear because of the cost is reckless.
Since literally nobody is even seriously considering batteries for more than overnight storage, it absolutely doesn't matter what problems you dump on them. The storage that will be built out after there is enough renewable online to charge it (still years off) will have plenty of capacity.
But "plenty" just means enough to hold out until a shipment of ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics arrives; and that, presuming transmission line backup is failing to deliver. Any extra synthesized, after local tankage is full, is sold on the open market. (If you imagine relying on shipments is too fragile, guess what! That is how we handle oil now.)
There is no future in which nuclear makes economic sense. The very best you ever get from a $billion spent on nukes is a half-GW, and that is not improving. With solar, a $billion buys, recently, 12 GW, and cost is still falling. But NC/GA just paid $15 billion for 0 watts, where they were promised 2 GW, and then were told they could still get them by sinking another $10 billion!
But "plenty" just means enough to hold out until a shipment of ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics arrives; and that, presuming transmission line backup is failing to deliver. Any extra synthesized, after local tankage is full, is sold on the open market. (If you imagine relying on shipments is too fragile, guess what! That is how we handle oil now.)
There is no future in which nuclear makes economic sense. The very best you ever get from a $billion spent on nukes is a half-GW, and that is not improving. With solar, a $billion buys, recently, 12 GW, and cost is still falling. But NC/GA just paid $15 billion for 0 watts, where they were promised 2 GW, and then were told they could still get them by sinking another $10 billion!
>Since literally nobody is even seriously considering batteries for more than overnight storage, it absolutely doesn't matter what problems you dump on them.
I don't care what the storage method is. I think you understood what I was talking about.
>The storage that will be built out after there is enough renewable online to charge it (still years off) will have plenty of capacity.
Who is going to determine "plenty"? Should we only have 1 day worth, 2 days, 3?
>But "plenty" just means enough to hold out until a shipment of ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics arrives; and that, presuming transmission line backup is failing to deliver. Any extra synthesized, after local tankage is full, is sold on the open market.
What happens if there is a shortage, supply chain issues, shipping issues, etc? If these last two years have taught us anything it is how fragile the supply chain is.
>(If you imagine relying on shipments is too fragile, guess what! That is how we handle oil now.)
I am not advocating for oil, but nuclear. I would point out a large chunk of oil comes from the US which lowers the risk. Getting necessities from the "tropics" means we have to deal with another country which increases the risk. What happens if these other countries refuse to sell to us? I would have less of an issue if we got whatever we needed from the US. I don't think there would be anything stopping us from getting hydrogen and ammonia from the US?
>There is no future in which nuclear makes economic sense.
I said the cost is irrelevant in my post. I am in favor of reliable, guaranteed energy production even if it is more expensive. Nuclear is the best choice for that. Nothing you posted contradicts that.
Ultimately you didn't even address my point. Let's take a hypothetical situation. An area uses 1 mW a day. How much energy should we store? What happens if the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow in that time period?
I don't care what the storage method is. I think you understood what I was talking about.
>The storage that will be built out after there is enough renewable online to charge it (still years off) will have plenty of capacity.
Who is going to determine "plenty"? Should we only have 1 day worth, 2 days, 3?
>But "plenty" just means enough to hold out until a shipment of ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics arrives; and that, presuming transmission line backup is failing to deliver. Any extra synthesized, after local tankage is full, is sold on the open market.
What happens if there is a shortage, supply chain issues, shipping issues, etc? If these last two years have taught us anything it is how fragile the supply chain is.
>(If you imagine relying on shipments is too fragile, guess what! That is how we handle oil now.)
I am not advocating for oil, but nuclear. I would point out a large chunk of oil comes from the US which lowers the risk. Getting necessities from the "tropics" means we have to deal with another country which increases the risk. What happens if these other countries refuse to sell to us? I would have less of an issue if we got whatever we needed from the US. I don't think there would be anything stopping us from getting hydrogen and ammonia from the US?
>There is no future in which nuclear makes economic sense.
I said the cost is irrelevant in my post. I am in favor of reliable, guaranteed energy production even if it is more expensive. Nuclear is the best choice for that. Nothing you posted contradicts that.
Ultimately you didn't even address my point. Let's take a hypothetical situation. An area uses 1 mW a day. How much energy should we store? What happens if the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow in that time period?
Cost is all-important. Ignoring cost makes anything you write irrelevant.
The US is not the only user or producer of energy. A comprehensive solution needs to carry everybody. If tropical country A will not sell you synthetic fuel, you may buy from B, C, D, E, F, G, or H, or some from each. There can be no embargo on sunshine. The US gets plenty, too.
There is no room for nukes in any solution, because nukes cannot produce at a price that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H cannot all beat. Its ask wins no bids. This is predictable, so it will find no financiers, excepting only corrupt governments that will initiate ruinously expensive projects, then cancel them long before completion. The projects will not give back so much as a penny handed them.
The US is not the only user or producer of energy. A comprehensive solution needs to carry everybody. If tropical country A will not sell you synthetic fuel, you may buy from B, C, D, E, F, G, or H, or some from each. There can be no embargo on sunshine. The US gets plenty, too.
There is no room for nukes in any solution, because nukes cannot produce at a price that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H cannot all beat. Its ask wins no bids. This is predictable, so it will find no financiers, excepting only corrupt governments that will initiate ruinously expensive projects, then cancel them long before completion. The projects will not give back so much as a penny handed them.
You again didn't answer my question. How much storage should we have?
Reliability and not relying on other countries are extremely important issues. They are widely held as important issues by many people. I would rather pay more to not rely on another country and to ensure we can have consistent production.
There can be embargo on countries. What happens to Russia in this situation? Maybe they can get power from China, but maybe not. They will have thousands of people freeze to death without power.
Reliability and not relying on other countries are extremely important issues. They are widely held as important issues by many people. I would rather pay more to not rely on another country and to ensure we can have consistent production.
There can be embargo on countries. What happens to Russia in this situation? Maybe they can get power from China, but maybe not. They will have thousands of people freeze to death without power.
We should have as much storage as we need. How much do we have now?
Even Russia gets plenty of sunshine and wind. And if they stop invading other countries, they will not even be embargoed.
Even Russia gets plenty of sunshine and wind. And if they stop invading other countries, they will not even be embargoed.
This is a recipe for disaster. Until we figure that part out, we are correct to hold off building them.
Perhaps a better framing is "We've neglected to figure out an incentive system that allows us to build, safely maintain and safely decommission nuclear projects."