Nuclear makes perfect sense if one ignores the costs and clearly it's preferable to wind and solar, but wouldn't it be easier to do coal and natural gas or reduce nuclear regulation to reduce costs?
"It (Palisades) was one of twelve nuclear plants shut down between 2012 and 2021, primarily due to economic challenges posed by low-cost natural gas from the U.S. fracking boom and heavily subsidized wind and solar power."
The smart thing to do would be to stop building unreliable wind and solar systems and decommission the existing ones so nuclear and gas plants would become profitable again. Then we'd have plenty of power day and night year around and wouldn't need any subsidies.
What changed about the economics of Palisades? A Gen II plant such as this would be less efficient, etc than a Gen III, with the exception that Fukushima was Gen III. If the economics are still bad no amount of government sibsidy will keep it from eventually being shut down again.
We need more electric power generation. Tye demand is growing at a higher rate every year. To meet this we need nukes. The anti nuke people need to get over it. Wind and solar are not competitive based on price to the rate payer - that’s been demonstrated solidly across the globe. Wind and solar are not without environmental impact. We need all forms of electricity generation but where you place what type of generation in the grid makes a huge difference. Time to get back to rational discussion on how to provide affordable electricity.
I like all of your comment except "We need all forms of electricity generation". I hear that a lot, but I think it would be better to focus on the best ideas that we know can work well and profitably without subsidies. I'm really skeptical about some of the far out methods of energy production - like offshore wind and hydrogen, for example. If some private investors want to research even farther out stuff, like fusion and solid state batteries, fine - but not with tax dollars.
Offshore wind is simply a grift. It is quite damaging to the environment and restricts use of the sea in and around the farm installation. On land it should be used at the end user site but not in the grid. Same for solar. Both are stressing the environment with the mining of the raw materials and the manufacturing process. When I say we need all forms of energy in not talking about as commercial generation in the electric grid, but there’s a place for other methods at end user facilities. We use solar cells at various sites for instrument power and even have a battery backup system - that’s a good example of use for electricity at a remote site. All of the commercial power generation needs to be done with proven, reliable, methods - but still done economically. Wind and solar will never be economical in the grid - that’s been proven without a doubt over the last decade or two. Outside of the USA there is a need for liquid fuel electricity generation, natural gas electric generation and massive hydroelectric generation. The same use of solar and wind at end user sites is appropriate. See Switch Energy Alliance work and documentaries.
As for the novel non-commercial energy generation - hydrogen, fusion, solid state batteries, and others are not commercial nor operating at scale economically for good reason. And you can’t push technology development by political mandate, not by legislation, not by excessive free government giveaways. It takes a lot of work, and that’s an ongoing process while we still use the standards - coal, natural gas, nuclear.
My own experience with moving products by pipeline in and around oil fields leaves me quite skeptical about hydrogen. I think the magic batteries have a long way to go before I give them consideration. On another technology - molten salt reactors, there is some real potential.
Coal, natural gas, bd crude oil will be with us for a long, long time - and they are economic at scale.
thanks eco-terrorists
In M. Angwin Book "Shorting the Grid", RTO Markets which Prioritize Wind and Solar, over Thermal
E-Generators. Electricity is a Service, not a commodity, as the E-Grid managed by RTO Markets which has little responsibility to properly compensate reliable E-Gen. "Entergy Sheds Uneconomic Merchant Nuclear Plants to Focus on Regulated Business" https://www.powermag.com/entergy-sheds-uneconomic-merchant-nuclear-plants-focus-regulated-business/ BUT>>Entergy Profitable Nuclear plants in REGULATED E-Grids ==https://www.entergynewsroom.com/news/entergy-nuclear-plants-contribute-louisiana-s-bright-future/ Bonus REGULATED E-Grids sell E-Power Cheaper to consumers & businesses with Better Reliability, so that is where AI Server Farms will locate to.
"It (Palisades) was one of twelve nuclear plants shut down between 2012 and 2021, primarily due to economic challenges posed by low-cost natural gas from the U.S. fracking boom and heavily subsidized wind and solar power."
The smart thing to do would be to stop building unreliable wind and solar systems and decommission the existing ones so nuclear and gas plants would become profitable again. Then we'd have plenty of power day and night year around and wouldn't need any subsidies.
What changed about the economics of Palisades? A Gen II plant such as this would be less efficient, etc than a Gen III, with the exception that Fukushima was Gen III. If the economics are still bad no amount of government sibsidy will keep it from eventually being shut down again.
With full backup wind and solar are useless. Just go with the backup and save the w/s subsidy for dispatchable power
Thanks for the details about the restarting process. Good info. Also good to hear that the Feds are FINALLY returning to sanity on this front!
We need more electric power generation. Tye demand is growing at a higher rate every year. To meet this we need nukes. The anti nuke people need to get over it. Wind and solar are not competitive based on price to the rate payer - that’s been demonstrated solidly across the globe. Wind and solar are not without environmental impact. We need all forms of electricity generation but where you place what type of generation in the grid makes a huge difference. Time to get back to rational discussion on how to provide affordable electricity.
I like all of your comment except "We need all forms of electricity generation". I hear that a lot, but I think it would be better to focus on the best ideas that we know can work well and profitably without subsidies. I'm really skeptical about some of the far out methods of energy production - like offshore wind and hydrogen, for example. If some private investors want to research even farther out stuff, like fusion and solid state batteries, fine - but not with tax dollars.
Offshore wind is simply a grift. It is quite damaging to the environment and restricts use of the sea in and around the farm installation. On land it should be used at the end user site but not in the grid. Same for solar. Both are stressing the environment with the mining of the raw materials and the manufacturing process. When I say we need all forms of energy in not talking about as commercial generation in the electric grid, but there’s a place for other methods at end user facilities. We use solar cells at various sites for instrument power and even have a battery backup system - that’s a good example of use for electricity at a remote site. All of the commercial power generation needs to be done with proven, reliable, methods - but still done economically. Wind and solar will never be economical in the grid - that’s been proven without a doubt over the last decade or two. Outside of the USA there is a need for liquid fuel electricity generation, natural gas electric generation and massive hydroelectric generation. The same use of solar and wind at end user sites is appropriate. See Switch Energy Alliance work and documentaries.
As for the novel non-commercial energy generation - hydrogen, fusion, solid state batteries, and others are not commercial nor operating at scale economically for good reason. And you can’t push technology development by political mandate, not by legislation, not by excessive free government giveaways. It takes a lot of work, and that’s an ongoing process while we still use the standards - coal, natural gas, nuclear.
My own experience with moving products by pipeline in and around oil fields leaves me quite skeptical about hydrogen. I think the magic batteries have a long way to go before I give them consideration. On another technology - molten salt reactors, there is some real potential.
Coal, natural gas, bd crude oil will be with us for a long, long time - and they are economic at scale.