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/

by jseliger • 4 years ago

11 11 4 years ago

thehill.com

billdietrich1• 4 years ago

"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.

_-david-_3• 4 years ago

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.

ncmncm5• 4 years ago

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!

pocw• 4 years ago

The word "neglect" as it is used creates an incorrect framing. But is actually a great word. The whole problem with Nuclear in the US is that we neglect the projects. Our plan around large, long-term nuclear creates a vicious incentive structure. Recouping billion-dollar investments leads to to nuclear plants being run as long and as cheaply as possible.

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."

ncmncm5• 4 years ago

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.

America’s neglect of nuclear energy has weakened our global influence

Related Stories