Energy policy around 'The West' is downright stupid. We have spent the last few years making policies making it more difficult to drill for more oil and gas, and more difficult to get those companies to raise finance. The policies were half hearted and not designed to work effectively, but likely had an impact on the margin. Complaining that companies aren't drilling enough is rich given that a year ago we didn't want them to drill.
As for Germany, I haven't got a clue what they were doing. A few months ago, the plan was to close nuclear plants and open a new gas pipeline from the hostile regime nearby. Now the plan is to totally reverse this, after the hostile regime blindsided everyone by doing something hostile.
As always, the problem is a failure to own the fact that trade-offs need to be made. We would prefer nuclear plants not to be working with dangerous radioactive stuff, but nuclear is the nearest thing we have to an actionable solution to both climate change and ensuring reliable energy for all. Renewables can produce a lot of electricity but they don't appear to be very reliable when there is no wind and limited sun intensity. If an environmentalist can suggest what a non-nuclear solution is to this problem that doesn't involve living like a feudal peasant, I'm all ears.
>> but nuclear is the nearest thing we have to an actionable solution to both climate change and ensuring reliable energy for all. Renewables can produce a lot of electricity but they don't appear to be very reliable when there is no wind and limited sun intensity.
This just isn't correct. We currently don't have shovel ready nuclear power technology that can be built at a reasonable cost. The current generation has failed and the more promising nex-gen won't be ready for a decade or more.
There isn't much disagreement among grid planners about the direction power generation is headed over the next decade or two. Economics is driving massive renewable buildouts, bolstered by battery storage. Within a decade or two, renewables will account for the vast majority of generation on most grids. Natural gas, hydro, and other storage will provide the last 10-20% of output. Government policies will impact the speed of this buildout and might push on the generation mix at the margins, but that's the trajectory we're headed and there's little disagreement about this.
What happens after that isn't as clear and depends on which next-gen tech wins the day.
Check out the links in my post above. They're not cherry picked. There isn't a single example in the west of a nuclear power plant being built within the last 20 years that came in on time or on budget. Construction times run about 10 to 15 years and costs are usually double or triple the initial estimate. On an all-in cost basis, nuclear power runs about 5 times the cost of other alternatives.
There are lots of theories as to why this is so, but it's the reality. Some people say China is building them economically, but that's suspect because China has been trying to export its nuclear power tech as part of belt and road and it hides the true cost of its completed projects and often quotes figures that exclude finance costs to make their projects look more competitive.
It’s possible China can build them economically because they don’t have to deal with the kind of insurance and regulatory issues that democratic nations do. Nuclear plants are not easy projects but dedicated opposition makes them that much harder
Ok. What are the theories as to why it is so? What do those theories tell us we can do to build nuclear on-time and on-budget? How can we test those theories?
This Austin Vernon post makes the case that nuclear isn't currently cost competitive with wind and solar for utility scale power generation due to the inefficiencies inherent in the physics of boiling water to run turbines, even assuming the most efficient international construction cost examples for new nuclear power plants. https://austinvernon.site/blog/nuclear.html
The most popular current theory is to use an approach called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). There's lots of research interest in this and even some fully funded pilot projects that should be completed within the next 5 to 10 years.
I'm a big proponent of funding these sorts of long-shot projects that have a chance to be revolutionary. In fact, Biden signed a bill last year that provides serious money for this sort of research and demonstration projects.
OTOH, back in 2010 when Obama launched his "all of the above" energy plan, his loan program (remember Solyndra?) helped fund construction of two nuclear power plants using what was then deemed to be the industry's latest answer to their cost problem. After a series of schedule and cost overruns and several bankruptcies, one plant has been cancelled and one is still limping along at 3x over budget and years behind schedule (see Summer and Vogtle wiki links above).
>Energy policy around 'The West' is downright stupid.
It's not stupid. It's ideological. The whole point was to export energy-intensive industry to somewhere else, leaving the West with a "clean" economy cubicles and service-sector work. This wasn't only done for environmental reasons, but to drive down labor costs (eg: your wages) and decrease entanglement with politically unreliable natural-resource exporters.
There are plenty of pathways that solve climate change and ensure reliable energy for all the don't involve nuclear long-term. They are also actionable, but not in the short term. Deploying enough storage and transmission capability to handle the intermittency of solar/wind is a multi-decade project.
The desire to shut down nuclear plants ASAP is being driven by long standing hostility to nuclear among many environmentalists, including the Green Party in Germany. It is not the most clear-eyed policy at this point in time.
Energy policy around 'The West' is downright stupid. We have spent the last few years making policies making it more difficult to drill for more oil and gas, and more difficult to get those companies to raise finance. The policies were half hearted and not designed to work effectively, but likely had an impact on the margin. Complaining that companies aren't drilling enough is rich given that a year ago we didn't want them to drill.
As for Germany, I haven't got a clue what they were doing. A few months ago, the plan was to close nuclear plants and open a new gas pipeline from the hostile regime nearby. Now the plan is to totally reverse this, after the hostile regime blindsided everyone by doing something hostile.
As always, the problem is a failure to own the fact that trade-offs need to be made. We would prefer nuclear plants not to be working with dangerous radioactive stuff, but nuclear is the nearest thing we have to an actionable solution to both climate change and ensuring reliable energy for all. Renewables can produce a lot of electricity but they don't appear to be very reliable when there is no wind and limited sun intensity. If an environmentalist can suggest what a non-nuclear solution is to this problem that doesn't involve living like a feudal peasant, I'm all ears.
>> but nuclear is the nearest thing we have to an actionable solution to both climate change and ensuring reliable energy for all. Renewables can produce a lot of electricity but they don't appear to be very reliable when there is no wind and limited sun intensity.
This just isn't correct. We currently don't have shovel ready nuclear power technology that can be built at a reasonable cost. The current generation has failed and the more promising nex-gen won't be ready for a decade or more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant
This is not just a US problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
Even France, long touted for its nuclear power expertise, can't built them economically anymore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant
There isn't much disagreement among grid planners about the direction power generation is headed over the next decade or two. Economics is driving massive renewable buildouts, bolstered by battery storage. Within a decade or two, renewables will account for the vast majority of generation on most grids. Natural gas, hydro, and other storage will provide the last 10-20% of output. Government policies will impact the speed of this buildout and might push on the generation mix at the margins, but that's the trajectory we're headed and there's little disagreement about this.
What happens after that isn't as clear and depends on which next-gen tech wins the day.
"We currently don't have shovel ready nuclear power technology that can be built at a reasonable cost."
Around the world, we literally use nuclear power stations built in the 1950s and 60s.
Check out the links in my post above. They're not cherry picked. There isn't a single example in the west of a nuclear power plant being built within the last 20 years that came in on time or on budget. Construction times run about 10 to 15 years and costs are usually double or triple the initial estimate. On an all-in cost basis, nuclear power runs about 5 times the cost of other alternatives.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/
There are lots of theories as to why this is so, but it's the reality. Some people say China is building them economically, but that's suspect because China has been trying to export its nuclear power tech as part of belt and road and it hides the true cost of its completed projects and often quotes figures that exclude finance costs to make their projects look more competitive.
The last half sentence is spot-on, that is *exactly* what’s happening.
I’ve talked to enough folks on those projects to know no one trusts the numbers.
It’s possible China can build them economically because they don’t have to deal with the kind of insurance and regulatory issues that democratic nations do. Nuclear plants are not easy projects but dedicated opposition makes them that much harder
Ok. What are the theories as to why it is so? What do those theories tell us we can do to build nuclear on-time and on-budget? How can we test those theories?
If you want to build nuclear reactors on-time and on-budget, budget 5x as much money and 3x as much time.
Ah, the true engineer's solution.
Reposting this comment:
This Austin Vernon post makes the case that nuclear isn't currently cost competitive with wind and solar for utility scale power generation due to the inefficiencies inherent in the physics of boiling water to run turbines, even assuming the most efficient international construction cost examples for new nuclear power plants. https://austinvernon.site/blog/nuclear.html
The most popular current theory is to use an approach called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). There's lots of research interest in this and even some fully funded pilot projects that should be completed within the next 5 to 10 years.
I'm a big proponent of funding these sorts of long-shot projects that have a chance to be revolutionary. In fact, Biden signed a bill last year that provides serious money for this sort of research and demonstration projects.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-supporting-infrastructure-bill-becomes-US
OTOH, back in 2010 when Obama launched his "all of the above" energy plan, his loan program (remember Solyndra?) helped fund construction of two nuclear power plants using what was then deemed to be the industry's latest answer to their cost problem. After a series of schedule and cost overruns and several bankruptcies, one plant has been cancelled and one is still limping along at 3x over budget and years behind schedule (see Summer and Vogtle wiki links above).
>Energy policy around 'The West' is downright stupid.
It's not stupid. It's ideological. The whole point was to export energy-intensive industry to somewhere else, leaving the West with a "clean" economy cubicles and service-sector work. This wasn't only done for environmental reasons, but to drive down labor costs (eg: your wages) and decrease entanglement with politically unreliable natural-resource exporters.
There are plenty of pathways that solve climate change and ensure reliable energy for all the don't involve nuclear long-term. They are also actionable, but not in the short term. Deploying enough storage and transmission capability to handle the intermittency of solar/wind is a multi-decade project.
The desire to shut down nuclear plants ASAP is being driven by long standing hostility to nuclear among many environmentalists, including the Green Party in Germany. It is not the most clear-eyed policy at this point in time.