Meredith Angwin is a reader of this substack and when I wrote a post critical of the Republican governor of Vermont where she and her husband reside, she politely and rightly chastised me for ignoring what the poor fellow has to confront politically in a state with so many New Yorkers.
Generally interesting, but one comment on your observation in the sixth bullet that nuclear has high capital costs. It has high UPFRONT capital costs, as do wind turbines and solar panels, but because of nuclear's low operating costs, as you mention, its (much longer) lifetime capital costs are the lowest of any energy source. Moreover, wind/solar get subsidies for their high upfront capital costs in the form both of help from fossil fuels and nuclear for their construction and for backup up their intermittency, as well as government tax credits and cost-plus financing for capacity, regardless of actual energy production. Plus the price of nuclear is boosted by misregulation by the NRC, as well as by litigations and demonstrations by antinuclear NGOs. So both the lowering of the price of wind/solar and the boosting of the price of nuclear are caused by artificial extrinsic influences that are not inherent in either energy source. Thus, LCOE (which is largely extrinsic) is a highly misleading index of renewables versus nuclear, while EROI (which is essentially intrinsic) is far more revealing. The ratio of EROIs between nuclear and renewables is roughly 30 to 1, or much more with more recent reactor designs. And nuclear doesn't suffer from the uncontrollable intermittency of renewables. Nuclear fuel is its own storage, as are fossil fuels, but the latter have negative side effects that require their elimination over time and their replacement by nuclear - but in a planned rather than chaotic way to avoid energy paucities that have their own harmful and even deadly effects.
In considering all the input costs, including materials, land, labor, time, energy, and money (financing), this EROI advantage of nuclear becomes evident. By surveying the ratios between wind/solar and nuclear for each of these inputs it is possible to show that a dollar spent on nuclear will yield something like 50 times as much energy as the same dollar spent on wind/solar. Or conversely, for the same net energy output wind/solar costs roughly 50 times that of nuclear. The factor of 50 is a placeholder to illustrate the two orders of magnitude difference but is difficult to pin down more precisely than that.
All this is explored in a new book by Greg Meyerson and me about to be published soon.
Nukes are ridiculously over-regulated. I wrote about that a few months ago and (semi-seriously) suggested building them in Africa as the only way to get out of all the stupid red tape
Thank you for your summary of Meredith's excellent book. The RTO and ISO system was created in response to the political problem of high power rates at the end of the 1990s in California and New York. The ISO and RTO system is designed to be complex and opaque. However, it does deliver higher economic returns to the economic elites who designed the system. Two key problems are the lack of accountability for delivering 24/7 reliable power as ERCOT demonstrated during winter storm Uri in mid-February 2021 in Texas and the lack of meaningful ratepayer representation. I favor a return to the vertically-integrated IOU approach with strong state regulation and accountability, as currently exists in the southeast U.S. There is a dangerous process underway to create a new ISO or RTO via the so-called WWGPI for the American West. On May 13, 2024 CGNP criticized the plan https://greennuke.substack.com/p/cgnps-opposition-to-the-wwgpi
Lets not forget the economists and market monitors who routinely publish annual "state of the market" reports that extol the consumer savings the deregulated electric industry has provide consumers over the decades. Then there's market rules and tariffs that are so complex and filled with legalize, they rival the IRS tax code. It is amazing how many industry folks don't understand all the nuances, it's just too big a beast. It has become difficult to manage issues that are constantly arising.
Though the Grid is an example of a "complex" physical system, it is treated by left-leaning politicians as if it were an example of a "non-complex" physical system. In this way, these politicians create a "climate crisis" that does not exist!
The key issue about renewables is that they work 40-80% of the time at “zero” cost. Is there data about what energy sources are they one that generate power when the cost is 10x or more the normal cost. The fundamentally insane aspect of short term energy pricing is that all energy sources are multi year investments. Why not have long term contracts that reflect the time gram of the commitment of capital to these essential projects.
Generally interesting, but one comment on your observation in the sixth bullet that nuclear has high capital costs. It has high UPFRONT capital costs, as do wind turbines and solar panels, but because of nuclear's low operating costs, as you mention, its (much longer) lifetime capital costs are the lowest of any energy source. Moreover, wind/solar get subsidies for their high upfront capital costs in the form both of help from fossil fuels and nuclear for their construction and for backup up their intermittency, as well as government tax credits and cost-plus financing for capacity, regardless of actual energy production. Plus the price of nuclear is boosted by misregulation by the NRC, as well as by litigations and demonstrations by antinuclear NGOs. So both the lowering of the price of wind/solar and the boosting of the price of nuclear are caused by artificial extrinsic influences that are not inherent in either energy source. Thus, LCOE (which is largely extrinsic) is a highly misleading index of renewables versus nuclear, while EROI (which is essentially intrinsic) is far more revealing. The ratio of EROIs between nuclear and renewables is roughly 30 to 1, or much more with more recent reactor designs. And nuclear doesn't suffer from the uncontrollable intermittency of renewables. Nuclear fuel is its own storage, as are fossil fuels, but the latter have negative side effects that require their elimination over time and their replacement by nuclear - but in a planned rather than chaotic way to avoid energy paucities that have their own harmful and even deadly effects.
In considering all the input costs, including materials, land, labor, time, energy, and money (financing), this EROI advantage of nuclear becomes evident. By surveying the ratios between wind/solar and nuclear for each of these inputs it is possible to show that a dollar spent on nuclear will yield something like 50 times as much energy as the same dollar spent on wind/solar. Or conversely, for the same net energy output wind/solar costs roughly 50 times that of nuclear. The factor of 50 is a placeholder to illustrate the two orders of magnitude difference but is difficult to pin down more precisely than that.
All this is explored in a new book by Greg Meyerson and me about to be published soon.
Bill Sacks
Nukes are ridiculously over-regulated. I wrote about that a few months ago and (semi-seriously) suggested building them in Africa as the only way to get out of all the stupid red tape
https://ombreolivier.substack.com/p/red-tape-strangles-nuclear-innovation
It is an excellent book, my wife is reading it now, and she has stated how easy it is for her to understand.
Thank you for your summary of Meredith's excellent book. The RTO and ISO system was created in response to the political problem of high power rates at the end of the 1990s in California and New York. The ISO and RTO system is designed to be complex and opaque. However, it does deliver higher economic returns to the economic elites who designed the system. Two key problems are the lack of accountability for delivering 24/7 reliable power as ERCOT demonstrated during winter storm Uri in mid-February 2021 in Texas and the lack of meaningful ratepayer representation. I favor a return to the vertically-integrated IOU approach with strong state regulation and accountability, as currently exists in the southeast U.S. There is a dangerous process underway to create a new ISO or RTO via the so-called WWGPI for the American West. On May 13, 2024 CGNP criticized the plan https://greennuke.substack.com/p/cgnps-opposition-to-the-wwgpi
Excellent analysis of RTO/ISO system. Thank you Doc!
Bravo! 👏 keep spreading the truth. Someone will finally hear it!
thanks for bringing the book to my attention. i am ordering it now.
Lets not forget the economists and market monitors who routinely publish annual "state of the market" reports that extol the consumer savings the deregulated electric industry has provide consumers over the decades. Then there's market rules and tariffs that are so complex and filled with legalize, they rival the IRS tax code. It is amazing how many industry folks don't understand all the nuances, it's just too big a beast. It has become difficult to manage issues that are constantly arising.
Dear Thomas:
Though the Grid is an example of a "complex" physical system, it is treated by left-leaning politicians as if it were an example of a "non-complex" physical system. In this way, these politicians create a "climate crisis" that does not exist!
Cordially
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, CA
terry_oldberg@yahoo..com
The key issue about renewables is that they work 40-80% of the time at “zero” cost. Is there data about what energy sources are they one that generate power when the cost is 10x or more the normal cost. The fundamentally insane aspect of short term energy pricing is that all energy sources are multi year investments. Why not have long term contracts that reflect the time gram of the commitment of capital to these essential projects.
Meredith was working on saving Vermont Yankee back in the 2010s and a friend suggested that she look into ISO New England and it's consumer board. Don't worry, green grifter Senator markey is working on it. https://www.rtoinsider.com/77872-senators-call-more-transparency-iso-ne/