California is first in world to ban new diesel trucks

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, Monterey said:

Hugely pro-nuclear.  If only I was in charge.  I keep hoping the tide will change and people will come back around to it.

I haven't come across anyone who is intellectually honest that doesn't agree that nuclear is clearly the best option both short and medium term.

It seems to me that if half the effort that's being made to reduce emissions were put into promoting and supporting nuclear we would be much closer to these goals. 

11 minutes ago, Bijan said:

it sounds free but it's not. Hydroelectric is more like that but the potential sites are limited and it's huge ecological damage.

And even with nuclear it's only clean in terms of greenhouse gases and chemical pollution. Nuclear waste is not a solved problem and going 100x or 1000x on production may sterilize the planet nore effectively than climate change.

I don't think anyone is suggesting nuclear is cheap. The point is solely to reduce emissions. 

I would imagine there are quite a few regulations that could be done away with to reduce the cost of nuclear. Also from what I understand Gen 4 nuclear generates very little waste and is much less expensive. But the point isn't the cost although it's certainly going to be cheaper than the reduction in the standard of living resulting from transitioning to renewables. 30 billion over 20 years is nothing. The US has spent 1.2 trillion on renewables since 2021. 

[Bijan]

16 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

30 billion over 20 years is nothing. The US has spent 1.2 trillion on renewables since 2021. 

The 30 billion plant here supplies about 3gw.

California grid capacity is 194,000gwh so 22gw, more probably depending on peak load.

That's at least 220 billion for California. Assuming it's still 30 billion per plant.

Edit: sorry math

Edit 2: California is currently at 33% renewables apparently.

Edit 3 : given that you'd need overcapacity and that you'd have to pay/borrow upfront that would more than double California's already considerable debt if done publicly. And if done privately you'd spend practically the same economic strain due to subsidies.

Edit 4: Ontario's provincial debt here is the largest subnational debt in North America, more than double California's, in large part due to nuclear boondoggles.

 

16 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I would imagine there are quite a few regulations that could be done away with to reduce the cost of nuclear.

Also those regulations are there to prevent Fukushima type situations. Given the earthquake fault lines in California that might be just as much of a concern.

[NSXCIGAR]

16 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Also those regulations are there to prevent Fukushima type situations. Given the earthquake fault lines in California that might be just as much of a concern.

You're not suggesting that every government regulation is necessary are you? 

And again, from what I understand Gen 4 nuclear isn't susceptible to the same issues a Fukushima-type plant would be. 

If CA is 22gw the whole country is what, 300gw? Gen 4 is about 50% more efficient than current plants so around 65 $30 billion (although Gen 4 are cheaper) plants could power the entire US. The cost would be <$2 trillion or about as much as has been spent in just the last 5 years on renewables with little to no impact.

[Bijan]

6 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The cost would be <$2 trillion or about as much as has been spent in just the last 5 years on renewables with little to no impact.

How much of that was from the public purse?

Also it's an entirely different proposition to subsidize a technology that is becoming cheaper and more commoditized over time vs a technology that is at best treading water in terms of cost (and generally increasing in cost, real costs, not theoretical costs, a lot of our pain in Ontario was from massive cost overruns).

Solar panels have dropped dramatically in cost, as have battery prices.

So that the per kw subsidies have gone way down in the last 20 years.

Computers and networks were once a government/military boondoggle. But now they're a huge profit center for private enterprise.

[NSXCIGAR]

3 minutes ago, Bijan said:

How much of that was from the public purse?

All of it. Nuclear isn't profitable, but neither are renewables yet. Private money isn't going into anything but coal fired at this point. 

But the issue isn't cost of hardware, it's cost of energy generation. Even if solar panels were free there's still costs associated with the energy production and storage that make them inefficient. 

[Bijan]

On 5/7/2023 at 3:24 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

If CA is 22gw the whole country is what, 300gw?

A quick search and I think it ends up being closer to 450-500. And again you need overcapacity due to plants going offline for years during refurbishment.

Also we have mined 3,000,000 tons of uranium since 1945.

There are 6,000,000 tons left worldwide.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

Edit: after that mining the fuel will start to be a considerable and ever growing cost.

 

On 5/7/2023 at 3:42 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

All of it. Nuclear isn't profitable, but neither are renewables yet. Private money isn't going into anything but coal fired at this point. 

Again even if it's dollar vs dollar. You buy solar sells or wind turbines or whatever and install them and you have power now.

You go down the nuclear route and it's engineers and design and years before anything. And it only comes in gw capacity increments, paid for in 30 year terms upfront.

On 5/7/2023 at 3:42 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

But the issue isn't cost of hardware, it's cost of energy generation. Even if solar panels were free there's still costs associated with the energy production and storage that make them inefficient. 

This is also true of nuclear. Someone has to pay the Homer Simpsons of the world 😂

 

The world has a 200 year supply of economically viable uranium fuel, given the current 10% share of electricity generation (440 reactors). If we go 100% then that's 20 years.

 

Natural gas can buy us some time. Nuclear in the places where it makes sense can buy us some time.

Fusion or renewables are the only long term solutions.

Edit: this is economically, let alone the environment.

Though coal would be a few hundred years. Though burning through all the minable coal on the planet in 300-400 years would not be great for the environment...

[NSXCIGAR]

6 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Again even if it's dollar vs dollar. You buy solar sells or wind turbines or whatever and install them and you have power now.

You go down the nuclear route and it's engineers and design and years before anything. And it only comes in gw capacity increments, paid for in 30 year terms upfront.

This is also true of nuclear. Someone has to pay the Homer Simpsons of the world 😂

Is there an actual breakdown of power generated per dollar? How far ahead of renewables is nuclear?

1 minute ago, Bijan said:

The world has a 200 year supply of economically viable uranium fuel, given the current 10% share of electricity generation (440 reactors). If we go 100% then that's 20 years.

Gen 4 is much more efficient in terms of both fuel consumption and waste generation. That would mean at least 30 years at 50% greater efficiency and probably more. 

3 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Fusion or renewables are the only long term solutions

Agreed. Nuclear just isn't profitable but neither are renewables. I just don't think either will ever be. Renewables are far more complex and present a host of other tangential complex issues. Nuclear is far simpler and to me is the only viable bridge until fusion which will happen this century. They're past the theoretical issue and it's now just an engineering issue. 

If the government is going to dump money into unprofitable ventures at least do it with a simple, proven system. 

[Bijan]

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Nuclear just isn't profitable but neither are renewables. I just don't think either will ever be.

Cherry picked (most profitable spots for installation), they are profitable now. That has never and will never be the case for nuclear. Costs are going up, and have always been.

Meanwhile cost of solar has kept going down for decades. Yes at one time it was totally stupid. But cost has gone down over 100x since the 70s and still falling.

Here are some charts:

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/04/solar-panel-cost-trends-10-charts/

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Renewables are far more complex and present a host of other tangential complex issues. Nuclear is far simpler

This is only the case with respect to management of the myriad installations and the grid. In terms of actual generation renewables are the most simple.

Simpler than coal, and at scale also than natural gas. If you want to run a house off grid, solar + battery is the most reliable/hands off solution, second only to a local hydro dam. Try to get a fossil fuel generator of that size/capacity that'll run for 30 years without maintenance. Or try your hand at a local nuclear install...

Nuclear from a technical perspective at the plant level is one of the most complicated. It doesn't cost $30 billion per plant because of the precious metal content of the plants.

Given that computer and information tech is still making steady strides, to the point where we're worried about AI taking over, being overly worried about the complexity of managing the grid or of planning installation layouts, etc. when it comes to renewables, seems odd.

 

[NSXCIGAR]

16 hours ago, Bijan said:

Cherry picked (most profitable spots for installation), they are profitable now. That has never and will never be the case for nuclear. Costs are going up, and have always been.

Meanwhile cost of solar has kept going down for decades. Yes at one time it was totally stupid. But cost has gone down over 100x since the 70s and still falling.

Again, Gen 4 is a totally different animal. Not saying it would be profitable but it might be possible.

As far as solar panel cost it looks like we're reaching a diminishing returns point. How much cheaper can they realistically get? Even in the cherry-picked areas are they profitable without subsides?

My understanding is the cherry-picked areas are areas of high sunshine and good weather, and there aren't too many of those places on Earth. And those areas are typically valuable, so has land cost and property taxes been factored in?

And where are these panels coming from? Could western labor costs sustain those prices? Those are some of the more complicated issues I was referring to.

[Bijan]

18 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

My understanding is the cherry-picked areas are areas of high sunshine and good weather, and there aren't too many of those places on Earth. And those areas are typically valuable, so has land cost and property taxes been factored in?

Let's take Southern California which is high sunshine good weather.

Without subsidies a 10kw system is $25k to $30k.

And residential electricity is $0.30 per kwh on average.

At full blast that's $3 an hour. But on average 30 to 45 kwh a day. So maybe $10 to $12 a day.

So 8-9 year break even, no subsidies.

And anyone with a reasonable single family home not blocked off can do that, with no subsidies.

Could install on such houses on build by default, and would cut down on cost further since it wouldn't be a retrofit.

Could eventually hit 5 year break even or less, for the consumer.

[NSXCIGAR]

19 minutes ago, Bijan said:

So 8-9 year break even, no subsidies.

But the average length of home ownership is only 8 years. And you've also left out maintenance. And only in those ideal regions is that kind of power output possible.

And anywhere it snows or hails you're going to have a serious problem.

So it's not quite profitable even in the most ideal regions and although it might get there for those regions I just don't see solar ever being profitable in most areas. 

[Bijan]

9 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And anywhere it snows or hails you're going to have a serious problem.

Not so. Here in Ontario when I looked was about $25k to $30k canadian to install. The output would be about half annually (very low in winter). But no expected maintenance for the 25-30 year lifetime.

A large part of southern Canada is about half the output as California. We're still only at 45 degrees latitude or so.

At $0.30 per kwh it would probably 15 to 20 year break even.  The difference is our hydro was about $0.15. so it wouldn't have made sense without subsidies.

Subsidies are gone now but at the time they would have paid us $0.25 or $0.27 per kwh.

Edit: We considered it, but the grid in our part  of town doesn't allow for selling back to the grid due to current capacity.

[Bijan]

Just to step back, it is even more "profitable" if done at scale. Actually profitable at times. The problem is for the grid overall it only solves the problem for daytime during sunny days.

If you want to supply all night long on cloudy days, the cost of battery storage, etc makes it much less profitable.

This is to me the complexity of renewables. Now you need a mix of solar and wind and then something else in case it's neither sunny nor windy. And so on. From the perspective of reducing coal/oil/gas usage over the course of the year renewables are still a no brainer.

It's in terms of making the grid 100% green that it starts to become more of an aspirational goal.

[NSXCIGAR]

52 minutes ago, Bijan said:

But no expected maintenance for the 25-30 year lifetime.

By maintenance I mean you have to clean the things. And with snow on them they don't work. And hail will damage them. 

54 minutes ago, Bijan said:

At $0.30 per kwh it would probably 15 to 20 year break even

Again, that's a serious issue if the average home ownership is 8 years. 

2 minutes ago, Bijan said:

This is to me the complexity of renewables.

Indeed. These are just the hardware complications. Again, where is this stuff being made and can western labor support it? Things are getting pretty dicey with China. 

Even at scale I think you'd have to have everything maxed out to even come close to providing enough power for any country and that would be extremely expensive. 

Nuclear is also expensive but the ability to generate enough power wouldn't be an issue like it is with renewables. 

I was just reading analyses of the cost increases for nuclear over the last 50 years and most of it is indeed due to regulations. Of course many of these are prudent but the articles I came across suggested about 30% of the regulations could be done away with or have become unnecessary. And that's not even taking into account the reduced cost of building Gen 4 plants which aren't susceptible to the same hazards as Gen 2 or 3. 

So while I'm not suggesting nuclear is head and shoulders above renewables (although it may be) it appears to be at least the slightly better option in almost all circumstances. 

[El Presidente]

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

By maintenance I mean you have to clean the things. And with snow on them they don't work. And hail will damage them.

Di's had hers for 15 years. Never cleaned once. Hail storms 2-3 times a year/ no damage.  Paid for itself within 5 years. Big cheque back every quarter since. 

No brainer in sunny climates. 

[Bijan]

My point on nuclear is that it's a way to turn billions of dollars into GW of power for a 30 year period.

It's similar to the math for solar panels. Solar panels also have a 30 year life cycle before you have to replace them.

On the other hand the fuel for nuclear is not unlimited. At current levels (10% of world electricity from nuclear), there's a 200 year supply. If we go full nuclear that's a 20 year supply. Then nuclear starts becoming even more (and more) expensive.

I think the common conception is that nuclear power is like hydro dam power. You put in billions and "free" power forever. But it's not.

With a hydro dam, for the most part the environmental/ecologic damage happens up front, and yes you have power for a long time with nominal maintenace.

With nuclear power the environmental damage (toxic/radioactive waste) is proportional to how long you run it. You only get 30 years out of the things before you need to put in more or less the initial investment again (adjusted for inflation), the fuel is not unlimited but will run out sooner than both coal and gas, and it is a much bigger disaster risk than anything else. And it's the most expensive solution, other than maybe going to 100% renewables right now, which no one is even considering.

Edit: In general spirit (though not in details), it is like hydrogen cars. It's a good way to turn billions of dollars into hundreds of millions of dollars worth of electricity (in the case of hydrogen it would be electricity into fuel).

[MrBirdman]

On 5/7/2023 at 12:21 AM, Bijan said:

Again if you revisit my theory. The problem is not mainly the environmental consequences but the social, economic and political consequences.

Nuclear is as much of a capital sucking black hole as fossil fuel will be going forward.

You put in 30 billion dollars for a plant every 20 or 30 years. Then you need to put in the same amount again after that to refurbish the plant to keep it running. Then that takes the plant down so you need 50% or 100% extra plants. France is in this crunch now.

Well it was 30 billion a while ago, might be double that now.

it sounds free but it's not. Hydroelectric is more like that but the potential sites are limited and it's huge ecological damage.

And even with nuclear it's only clean in terms of greenhouse gases and chemical pollution. Nuclear waste is not a solved problem and going 100x or 1000x on production may sterilize the planet nore effectively than climate change.

 

Natural gas is a no brainer. If it replaces coal it is way less carbon emissions. If oil still significantly less, also less chemical pollutants I believe.

Also in the end, in rough terms, the carbon footprint of a thing is roughly correlated to its cost (direct emissions excepted).

So paying 3x as much for nuclear than natural gas (3x just an example),  means that the indirect carbon footprint is roughly 3x.

The hope with EVs and green tech is that the prices be such, that it will be a net win all things considered.

I would distinguish building new plants and shutting down perfectly good ones. I agree that building new plants is prohibitively expensive, but Three Mile Island could’ve been modernized for less than half a billion. A lot would have come from taxpayers but it isn’t like we don’t subsidize fracking in PA or fossil fuels at the national level. (And yes the switch to natural gas from coal has been the biggest contributor to US gains in GHG emissions reduction).

And while no design is completely fail-safe, the biggest threat to modern US nuclear plants is from a terrorist attack, not malfunctions.

Also worth pointing out (even though it’s not dispositive), nuclear plant jobs are - at least in PA - extremely well compensated. When I ran for office I talked to a lot of nuclear plant workers who live in the district (off the record) and I don’t think I’ve ever talked to a group of people working for the man who were so content with their jobs. That’s just one operator though and obviously a small sample size. But it’s stuck with me. 

[Bijan]

21 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

And while no design is completely fail-safe, the biggest threat to modern US nuclear plants is from a terrorist attack, not malfunctions.

Well considering none have failed via terror attack yet,  and at least two have failed catastrophically, one through incompetence (Chernobyl) and one through natural disaster (Fukushima) and a couple of others we only escaped by the skin of our teeth that's not great to think terror attack is even more likely.

Edit: I see you said US plants, that's one of the skin of our teeth ones (Three Mile Island itself actually).

Also the plant here that cost tens of billions was budgeted at $3 billion. These things are supreme boondoggles.

Edit 2: Your point about new vs existing plants is well taken. If Germany did decommission plants midlife then that's kind of crazy,

21 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

Also worth pointing out (even though it’s not dispositive), nuclear plant jobs are - at least in PA - extremely well compensated.

The Homer Simpson character trope came from somewhere. And as someone living in Canada I can tell you that having government bleed money hemorrhagicly (often at private capital) in exchange for temporary job creation is not a good long term economic strategy.

[NSXCIGAR]

On 5/8/2023 at 5:25 PM, El Presidente said:

Di's had hers for 15 years. Never cleaned once. Hail storms 2-3 times a year/ no damage.  Paid for itself within 5 years. Big cheque back every quarter since. 

Was it subsidized?

 

18 hours ago, Bijan said:

It's similar to the math for solar panels. Solar panels also have a 30 year life cycle before you have to replace them.

On the other hand the fuel for nuclear is not unlimited. At current levels (10% of world electricity from nuclear), there's a 200 year supply. If we go full nuclear that's a 20 year supply. Then nuclear starts becoming even more (and more) expensive.

Again, I believe Gen 4 plants will last longer, use less fuel, produce far less waste and are extremely safe from accident or terrorism. 

[Bijan]

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Again, I believe Gen 4 plants will last longer, use less fuel, produce far less waste and are extremely safe from accident or terrorism. 

Wet blanket time.

Quick wikipedia:

"The first commercial Gen IV plants are not expected before 2040–2050,[3] although the World Nuclear Association in 2015 suggested that some might enter commercial operation before 2030.[4]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

[NSXCIGAR]

4 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Wet blanket time.

Quick wikipedia:

"The first commercial Gen IV plants are not expected before 2040–2050,[3] although the World Nuclear Association in 2015 suggested that some might enter commercial operation before 2030.[4]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Because no one's promoting or financing them. If regulations were reviewed and money came in they'd be much closer to reality. 

And "before 2030" is only a few years away.

The point is that if you're going to talk about nuclear going forward you have to talk about Gen 4. Focusing on Gen 3 makes no sense. 

[Bijan]

21 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The point is that if you're going to talk about nuclear going forward you have to talk about Gen 4. Focusing on Gen 3 makes no sense. 

That would be totally fair if they existed in commercially viable form now. Otherwise one can debate/doubt the accuracy of the predictions.

21 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Because no one's promoting or financing them. If regulations were reviewed and money came in they'd be much closer to reality. 

As I said nuclear fission is a boondoggle only surpassed by nuclear fusion. The difference is that fusion is a forever solution that is practically ideal (if it ever becomes viable).

[NSXCIGAR]

7 minutes ago, Bijan said:

That would be totally fair if they existed in commercially viable form now. Otherwise one can debate/doubt the accuracy of the predictions.

As I said nuclear fission is a boondoggle only surpassed by nuclear fusion. The difference is that fusion is a forever solution that is practically ideal (if it ever becomes viable).

Well, before 2030 is pretty much now. 2040 right around the corner. All these renewables goals are 2035-2050. 

And I would argue that the case can strongly be made that renewables are a boondoggle in any practical time frame and present so many other complex issues that it's clearly the sub-optimal path, although how much less optimal is debatable.

[El Presidente]

46 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Was it subsidized?

No doubt. Just like fossil fuels are subsidised 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

No doubt. Just like fossil fuels are subsidised 

Degree matters. US subsidizes fossils $20 billion. Renewables $634 billion.