Where does Nuclear Power stand as an energy alternative?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
In any case it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is not an ideal generation source when paired with solar.


I think you mean 'solar is not an ideal generation source when paired with nuclear'.

A power source that requires large amounts of energy to produce, varies radically in output through the year even in ideal conditions, and is only available at most half the day is a really silly idea if you have any other alternative that's actually reliable all year round. Solar is great if you have to live off the grid, but that's about it.


No actually I don't. The variability isn't that great in the lower 48 especially the bottom half the country. For example the northern edge of Texas is essentially 20 degrees farther south than the US/Canadian border. Texas is on the same line of latitude as North Africa and the Middle East.

In the US the un-subsidized cost of solar is rapidly approaching that of more traditional sources which is why, in the US, utilities generally are investing in grid management/storage rather than generation.


Of course in an ideal world, we'd all have a power unit about the size of a briefcase which we could then plug into/power our homes. Talk about freedom.



You must never actually watch the weather....
 
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by jhs914
so renewable energy can't replace stand alone power generation.

My publicly owned utility company gets darn close (~70%)... And my rates locally are amongst the lowest in the nation (see pic) at $0.0813/kWh and would be lower, if Bonneville didn't sell (their obligated by Congress to do so) all that dam (pun intended ...‚) power to AZ, CA and NV.

This is the breakdown from my PUD's website...
Hydro 62.8 percent
Natural Gas 28.7 percent
Coal 2.1 percent
Nuclear 5.9 percent
Other * 0.5 percent
* "Other" includes biomass, other non-biogenic, and petroleum.
[Linked Image]


What I was saying is that solar/wind renewable's can't replace stand alone. Like I said later in the quote, hydro is the only workable renewable energy because of its ability to store potential energy in reservoirs for use on demand. Your state has abundant hydro power and wisely uses it. Here in the flatlands of Florida hydro is not much of an option.
 
Originally Posted by mk378
Even if there were no regulations at all on the mining and burning of coal, fracked natural gas would still be cheaper btu for btu.
And a much cleaner burning fuel for a steam generator by far.
 
Any commercial insurance entity willing to insure a new Nuke plant? Anybody wants to make call to Lloyds of London?

I think that boat has sailed. Unless government is willing to assume the risk of the nuclear going full glow, no new nuclear plants will be built any more. You will have better luck convincing your town to build new tobacco processing plant than a nuclear power plant. Nobody visiting this forum is old enough but I bet lots of towns and states competed for tobacco processing plants to be built before I was born. Time change.

BUT, I do enjoy the technical discussion about the nuclear power. Financially, it is no longer viable when you try to insure it on open market.

I wonder how Overkill/Shannon will respond or if they will.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Vikas
I wonder how Overkill/Shannon will respond or if they will.


Not sure if Shannon will answer, as he's not been here for years.

Originally Posted by Vikas
Any commercial insurance entity willing to insure a new Nuke plant? Anybody wants to make call to Lloyds of London?


Are you talking from a position of understanding indistrial insurance and underwriting, or making up a position, and asking others to challenge...strawmanning if you will...?

So you are saying that insuruers will not insure nuclear...demonstrate that "fact"
 
Originally Posted by Vikas
Any commercial insurance entity willing to insure a new Nuke plant? Anybody wants to make call to Lloyds of London?

I think that boat has sailed. Unless government is willing to assume the risk of the nuclear going full glow, no new nuclear plants will be built any more. You will have better luck convincing your town to build new tobacco processing plant than a nuclear power plant. Nobody visiting this forum is old enough but I bet lots of towns and states competed for tobacco processing plants to be built before I was born. Time change.

BUT, I do enjoy the technical discussion about the nuclear power. Financially, it is no longer viable when you try to insure it on open market.

I wonder how Overkill/Shannon will respond or if they will.


A public utility has no problems insuring nuclear, and I assume Bruce Power, which is private, has no problems insuring the largest operating NPP in the world
21.gif


How is Georgia insuring Vogtle? Did you see a Korean consortium may be purchasing, and completing, the incomplete nuke in the Carolinas?

As I believe I noted to you before, there are plenty of new nukes being built all over the world, just not very many in the USA. The UK is currently completing Hinkley Point C, which, like Vogtle, went over budget, but it sounds like they are now going to build Sizewell C as well.

Here is the list of currently plants under construction, which also lists when they are expected to come online:
https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...on/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

As expected, China and India dominate the list, but there are reactors all over the world being built.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top