First 0 nuclear reactors will be built anywhere in US before 2035.
Texas is actually a renewables leader because, believe it or not, it has the least corrupt grid/utility sector, and renewables are the best market solution.
Even with 24/7 datacenter needs, near site solar + 4 hour batteries is quicker to build than fossil fuel plants and long transmission, and it also allows an eventual small grid connection to both provide overnight resilience from low transmission utilization fossil fuel as peakers anywhere in the state as well as export clean energy on sunnier days.
Market solutions, despite hostile governments, can reduce fossil fuel electricity even with massive demand surge. One of the more important market effects is that reliance of mass fossil fuel electricity expansion and expensive long high capacity transmission, would ensure a high captive cost at high fuel costs because of mass use, in addtion to extorting all regular electricity consumers. Solar locks in costs forever, including potentially reducing normal consumer electricity costs.
I think they mean “the same forces that led to the grid collapsing every few years – prioritizing profit above all else, and the government giving zero fucks-- are the same forces which trigger new development to be in renewables with zero regulation or oversight”
Conservatives always write about their broken-clock-right-twice successes in a similar way.
Compared to California, where everything is done to increase customer rates, or most other states where long wait lines to connect power occur, you can measure effective corruption by how much energy additions are made, including home solar. You can be critical of their exposure to power system failures, but that doesn’t make the system corrupt.
Just that the lack of cheap energy built/connected is a function of all of the obstacles put in the way of those projects. They get done in Texas more than other places that “put out a better virtue vibe”, but behind the scenes put up obstacles.
Its interesting how you can only talk positively about Texas by comparing it to others.
Can you answer this question without comparing Texas to any other state or entity: How is charging hundreds of dollars per kWh during storms in the best interests of the “regular electricity consumers”?
I recognize that failing, but afaiu, it applied to a limited number of customers who “gambled on variable rates”. The political leadership there also shit talks renewables, putting false blame on them for grid failures, but the actual operational environment still permits a lot of renewable expansion: The basis for calling their system the least corrupt.
near site solar + 4 hour batteries is quicker to build
But is it quicker at scale? Can solar and battery production keep up with expanding demand? Can it continue to do so over 10+ years? Can it outpace demand and start replacing fossil fuels?
Usually the proper solution is a mix of technologies. It shouldn’t be solar vs nuclear vs wind, but a mixture.
Nuclear does a great job at providing a large amount of energy consistently. It’s really bad at fluctuations in demand, and it’s also really bad at quick rollout. I think it makes a lot of sense to build nuclear in Texas over the long term because it can start filling in demand as efficiency of older panels and batteries drop off, which extends the useful life of those installations and reduces reliance on battery backups.
I also think hydrogen is an interesting option as well, since it’s sort of an alternative to batteries, which can be hard to get at scale. Use excess generation for electrolysis and use those for mobile energy use (e.g. trucks, forklifts, etc) or electricity generation. It’s also not ideal, but it could make sense as part of a broader grid setup.
Solar is awesome and we need more of it. I just want to encourage consideration of other options so we can attack energy production from multiple angles.
Can solar and battery production keep up with expanding demand?
China is expanding so fast that they are accused of overproducing, and so supply capacity is not only there, it can increase further.
Usually the proper solution is a mix of technologies. It shouldn’t be solar vs nuclear vs wind, but a mixture.
The main benefit of wind is in battery reduction. A capacity equal to lowest night demand. Wind often produces longer hours than solar per day. The predictability of solar allows clear power forecasts, and then enough solar for needs with a small grid connection allowing both monetizing surpluses, and having resilience in shortfalls. Nuclear has no economic or climate roles, for being both too expensive and of too long a delay.
I also think hydrogen is an interesting option as well, since it’s sort of an alternative to batteries,
Hydrogen is the solution for having unlimited renewables and being able to monetize all of their surpluses. It is a bonus to be able to provide emergency/peak power, including renting a vehicle to have bonus value of powering a building. For today, backup fossil fuel generators can still provide resilience value to solar.
Using existing infrastructure for backup/resilience as renewables are ramped up is the ideal. Was German last government’s approach. Cheaper (free) than even maintaining/refurbishing aging nuclear, allowing for private sector to expand renewables (also free). Standby payments to stay open and ready is cheap, and permits rapdid renewables to decrease their peaker use.
“Baseload” nuclear has the inverse problem of renewables. It needs to sell all of its very expensive power near 24/7. Costs being dominated by its initial building, means that half capacity is double the breakeven power revenue. Nuclear needs to suppress cheaper energy to be viable, and in the ultra optimistic (Vogtle took 20 years) 10 year buildout period, renewables must be suppressed so that when the ON switch is set, full power sales occur.
France has a ton of nuclear and it is on the cheaper end for electricity rates in Europe
France has understood that building new nuclear should wait until 2060s, when possible construction technology is advanced enough. The heyday of nuclear came when electricity demand was growing fast, and fears of available reserves and geopolitics affecting alternatives. Coal is also excessively polluting and dirty, in a locally displeasing way. The environment of alternatives is much different today.
“Baseload” nuclear has the inverse problem of renewables. It needs to sell all of its very expensive power near 24/7.
Excess nuclear production at night recharges batteries for daytime use, reducing the need for battery and solar rollout. Excess solar production during the day recharges batteries for nighttime use, reducing the need for baseload supply. Daytime use is higher than night time use, so this is pretty close to the ideal setup, no?
Use each non-polluting source for what it’s best at. You don’t need any one source to be the primary supplier of electricity, you want a diverse enough set that you get an optimal mix to keep costs and pollution low and reliability high. Mix in some wind and others for opportunistic, cheap generation.
Yes, both can charge batteries. Solar charges then at 10x less cost, and combined solar+batteries provides the same total “baseload function” at 2x-4x less cost, and can be up and running in 1 year instead of 10, and expanded the year after that. It’s even a myth that nuclear uses less land. You can use the land under solar, and you don’t need exclusion zones around reactors and uranium mines
It’s lower initial cost, sure, but what about longer term? Surely battery costs add up long term as they need to be expanded and replaced, making nuclear more attractive after 10-20 years.
I’m not an expert here though, I’m merely saying a lot of people would be fine with a higher initial investment if the long term benefits justify it.
It’s lower initial cost, sure, but what about longer term? Surely battery costs add up long term as they need to be expanded and replaced, making nuclear more attractive after 10-20 years.
No. Nuclear also has fairly high operations/staff costs, and fuel is highly variable and more expensive the more other nuclear plants there are. You mentioned the possibility of charging batteries (Hydrogen also possible) from nuclear, to handle peak day use/transmission, but batteries pair better with solar, and as a total package can serve same “baseload” purpose as nuclear but cheaper. There are no long term benefits to nuclear… economic ones ignoring weapons motivations.
First 0 nuclear reactors will be built anywhere in US before 2035.
Texas is actually a renewables leader because, believe it or not, it has the least corrupt grid/utility sector, and renewables are the best market solution.
Even with 24/7 datacenter needs, near site solar + 4 hour batteries is quicker to build than fossil fuel plants and long transmission, and it also allows an eventual small grid connection to both provide overnight resilience from low transmission utilization fossil fuel as peakers anywhere in the state as well as export clean energy on sunnier days.
Market solutions, despite hostile governments, can reduce fossil fuel electricity even with massive demand surge. One of the more important market effects is that reliance of mass fossil fuel electricity expansion and expensive long high capacity transmission, would ensure a high captive cost at high fuel costs because of mass use, in addtion to extorting all regular electricity consumers. Solar locks in costs forever, including potentially reducing normal consumer electricity costs.
“The least corrupt/utility sector” I must be thinking of the wrong Texas, which one are you referring too?
I think they mean “the same forces that led to the grid collapsing every few years – prioritizing profit above all else, and the government giving zero fucks-- are the same forces which trigger new development to be in renewables with zero regulation or oversight”
Conservatives always write about their broken-clock-right-twice successes in a similar way.
Compared to California, where everything is done to increase customer rates, or most other states where long wait lines to connect power occur, you can measure effective corruption by how much energy additions are made, including home solar. You can be critical of their exposure to power system failures, but that doesn’t make the system corrupt.
Your measure of corruption is what now? How many new things are built regardless of their need or what impacts they may have?
Very…unique standpoint.
Just that the lack of cheap energy built/connected is a function of all of the obstacles put in the way of those projects. They get done in Texas more than other places that “put out a better virtue vibe”, but behind the scenes put up obstacles.
Its interesting how you can only talk positively about Texas by comparing it to others.
Can you answer this question without comparing Texas to any other state or entity: How is charging hundreds of dollars per kWh during storms in the best interests of the “regular electricity consumers”?
I recognize that failing, but afaiu, it applied to a limited number of customers who “gambled on variable rates”. The political leadership there also shit talks renewables, putting false blame on them for grid failures, but the actual operational environment still permits a lot of renewable expansion: The basis for calling their system the least corrupt.
But is it quicker at scale? Can solar and battery production keep up with expanding demand? Can it continue to do so over 10+ years? Can it outpace demand and start replacing fossil fuels?
Usually the proper solution is a mix of technologies. It shouldn’t be solar vs nuclear vs wind, but a mixture.
Nuclear does a great job at providing a large amount of energy consistently. It’s really bad at fluctuations in demand, and it’s also really bad at quick rollout. I think it makes a lot of sense to build nuclear in Texas over the long term because it can start filling in demand as efficiency of older panels and batteries drop off, which extends the useful life of those installations and reduces reliance on battery backups.
I also think hydrogen is an interesting option as well, since it’s sort of an alternative to batteries, which can be hard to get at scale. Use excess generation for electrolysis and use those for mobile energy use (e.g. trucks, forklifts, etc) or electricity generation. It’s also not ideal, but it could make sense as part of a broader grid setup.
Solar is awesome and we need more of it. I just want to encourage consideration of other options so we can attack energy production from multiple angles.
China is expanding so fast that they are accused of overproducing, and so supply capacity is not only there, it can increase further.
The main benefit of wind is in battery reduction. A capacity equal to lowest night demand. Wind often produces longer hours than solar per day. The predictability of solar allows clear power forecasts, and then enough solar for needs with a small grid connection allowing both monetizing surpluses, and having resilience in shortfalls. Nuclear has no economic or climate roles, for being both too expensive and of too long a delay.
Hydrogen is the solution for having unlimited renewables and being able to monetize all of their surpluses. It is a bonus to be able to provide emergency/peak power, including renting a vehicle to have bonus value of powering a building. For today, backup fossil fuel generators can still provide resilience value to solar.
And that’s the issue. Nuclear is an effective alternative to fossil fuels and can make sense in many areas. What you need is:
France has a ton of nuclear and it is on the cheaper end for electricity rates in Europe, and they’re not particularly well-suited for it.
It’s not a panacea, but it should absolutely be considered as a replacement for fossil fuels if energy demand is high enough.
Using existing infrastructure for backup/resilience as renewables are ramped up is the ideal. Was German last government’s approach. Cheaper (free) than even maintaining/refurbishing aging nuclear, allowing for private sector to expand renewables (also free). Standby payments to stay open and ready is cheap, and permits rapdid renewables to decrease their peaker use.
“Baseload” nuclear has the inverse problem of renewables. It needs to sell all of its very expensive power near 24/7. Costs being dominated by its initial building, means that half capacity is double the breakeven power revenue. Nuclear needs to suppress cheaper energy to be viable, and in the ultra optimistic (Vogtle took 20 years) 10 year buildout period, renewables must be suppressed so that when the ON switch is set, full power sales occur.
France has understood that building new nuclear should wait until 2060s, when possible construction technology is advanced enough. The heyday of nuclear came when electricity demand was growing fast, and fears of available reserves and geopolitics affecting alternatives. Coal is also excessively polluting and dirty, in a locally displeasing way. The environment of alternatives is much different today.
Excess nuclear production at night recharges batteries for daytime use, reducing the need for battery and solar rollout. Excess solar production during the day recharges batteries for nighttime use, reducing the need for baseload supply. Daytime use is higher than night time use, so this is pretty close to the ideal setup, no?
Use each non-polluting source for what it’s best at. You don’t need any one source to be the primary supplier of electricity, you want a diverse enough set that you get an optimal mix to keep costs and pollution low and reliability high. Mix in some wind and others for opportunistic, cheap generation.
Yes, both can charge batteries. Solar charges then at 10x less cost, and combined solar+batteries provides the same total “baseload function” at 2x-4x less cost, and can be up and running in 1 year instead of 10, and expanded the year after that. It’s even a myth that nuclear uses less land. You can use the land under solar, and you don’t need exclusion zones around reactors and uranium mines
It’s lower initial cost, sure, but what about longer term? Surely battery costs add up long term as they need to be expanded and replaced, making nuclear more attractive after 10-20 years.
I’m not an expert here though, I’m merely saying a lot of people would be fine with a higher initial investment if the long term benefits justify it.
No. Nuclear also has fairly high operations/staff costs, and fuel is highly variable and more expensive the more other nuclear plants there are. You mentioned the possibility of charging batteries (Hydrogen also possible) from nuclear, to handle peak day use/transmission, but batteries pair better with solar, and as a total package can serve same “baseload” purpose as nuclear but cheaper. There are no long term benefits to nuclear… economic ones ignoring weapons motivations.