The global nuclear comeback is real, even in Japan, where the accident at Fukushima Daiichi still looms large in the public’s consciousness.
For proof of that comeback, we went to Canada, where a tall, Toronto-based emergency room doctor named Chris Keefer ignited a groundswell of support to expand and refurbish Ontario’s fleet of nuclear reactors.
Thorium liquid salts cooled reactors could provide abundant cheap safe electricity.
Maybe eventually. Perhaps.
And that is the point. Uranium is here, now, well proven, understood and safe, with supply chains and waste disposal in place, and therefore less risky commercially.
India is likely to be the place that first commercialises thorium, because they have lots of it and no pre-existent large nuclear supply chain to scrap.
Exactly! Dreams are cheap and plentiful. Demonstrations of technical feasibility at commercial scale not so much . . . and over some some 60+ years since “promising” MSR technology was first investigated experimentally, it has failed the catch the attention of all major commercial power plant manufacturers.
Nuke power is just like wind and solar trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
What is the problem that we need Nuke power fix? Is the problem political or is it the need for cheap energy? Political problems do not need engineering solutions. Nuke power is not a cheap energy solution.
Nuke power is the expensive option long term compared to natural gas due to high per KW capital costs. Natural gas is already meeting the need.
What we need is to solve the political problem.
We must demand that politicians get out of the way of cheap energy and allow the a free competitive market for NG instead of constantly putting the kibosh on it.
Why spend capital at a factor of 15 times greater than that of a a new combined cycle natural gas plant for a new nuke power plant that we don’t need because it solves no problem. …let alone replace an existing one with nuke power?
Going Ga Ga over nuke power is like going Ga Ga over fixing a problem with a old cool toy when a problem doesn’t exist.
Like smartphones….the only problem they solved is our desire to be entertained by cool tech. When was desire a real teleological problem…it is purely existential.
NG supply is ample for our long term needs
MIT in 2010 demonstrated there are huge recoverable fields of natural gas in PA and NY and OK and TX enough to power the US for centuries. Don’t be miss informed.
Lets not give into the green anti-fossil fuel narrative which is nothing more than a bogus propaganda ploy to enable the leveraging of politicians to constrain fossil fuel supply and prop up prices.
….just like Biden has done putting the kibosh on US exported LNG. Constraining NG supply props up oil prices and NG prices globally. The real motivation for the deepest pockets in the world is fossil fuel revenue not saving the world. We need to wise up to this fact. Big energy are Davos freaks.
Nuke has more stable fuel prices…. that is only if the supply of uranium is completely subsidized and market controlled by our government.
Allow a free market and watch what happens if we shut down all the NG power plants and replace them with nuke power…….uranium prices will go through the roof.
Allow a free market and watch what happens if we shut down all the NG power plants and replace them with nuke power…….
uranium pricesprices for everything in our nation will go through the roof.There, fixed it for you.
ToldYouSo, Thanks… much appreciated! I need to use more care writing responses.
Ironically, shutting down all the NG plants and replacing them with nuke power would demonstrate a case example of the antithesis of a free market.
Every local energy market needs to go for the cheapest local option competitively. If this it is impossible because of corporate power leveraged politicians then get rid of them. Educate the public about the economic realities of what is being imposed on them and how the bogus claims do not align with reality.
For some localities and homes the cheapest option will be solar, others it will be coal…. or nuke or or natural gas etc.
We need to stop politicizing energy inputs left or right… it just confuses the issue.
Cheap energy is the issue because we don’t have it. Stick with this. Call Climate change what it is, a non-problem and work from there.
Obviously we hope for far cheaper energy innovations in the future with far better tech…. lets focus on that as well.
Local people need the freedom to enter competitive energy markets and go for the cheapest option. Everything else is political BS left or right. No cheap energy option needs to be thrown out with the bathwater….. not even grass and horses, vineyard wood waste, solar in the Mojave dessert, Coal and NG in PA, wood, dung. LOL
A competitive market would see optimisation between a portfolio of choices with lowest cost baseload as the foundation. In some regions that might be hydro, which also is very adaptable for providing flex generation. See e.g. Norway, and much of South America. In others local coal is cheapest. In Hawaii for many years the answer was No.6 resid., partly because it was easy to store. Nuclear is a good option for countries without secure local supply for baseload. In Texas and Louisiana and Siberia gas makes good sense.
Gas really comes into its own for handling flex demand where hydro is not available in sufficient quantities. But an optimisation would see some alternative fuel for mid rank generation. The UK was able to sidestep the need to import LNG after Fukushima by switching to coal at much lower cost. Gas still gets used to handle the high ramp rate and peak power demands.
Precisely because nuclear fuel is so energy dense and low cost, maintaining a strategic stock to ride through market upsets like the coup in Niger is relatively easy. The market smoothing from stocks is why nuclear fuel prices are much less volatile. But since the fuel cost is only a few $/MWh, trebling the price is not massively injurious anyway.
LNG prices at North of $40/MMBtu as an input to generation is what faced most of Europe in 2022. The loss of cheap nuclear and coal as alternatives hit really hard. Month average power prices exceeded $600/MWh.
Natural gas is fine if you have access to an ample reliable pipeline supply. Less desirable as a sole source if you have to import LNG at prices that can zoom all over the place. Also less desirable if your supplier cuts you off. Ask Germany.
Engineers can do amazing things, if they’re allowed.
Same with foresters- but we’re mostly not allowed- in order to “save the planet”.
And social workers are solving complex problems all day long every day and some are anti-radical green agenda paleo-conservatives. And some of us have significant peripheral training in logic and philosophy… And understand statistics and modeling very well because we are employed building models and writing policy as healthcare analysts. LOL
Hey Steve Case,
And some of the best thinkers in the world have liberal arts degrees…..
I have known English Majors of massive gifts who think statistics are boring and who could write the most incredibly winsome discursive anti-Rad Green narratives that would have huge impacts on the trajectory of the political course we are on without a single lick of science informatics in it.. Fortunately, they are not journalists LOL!
Science and engineering solves essential teleological problems as long as they are not stuck in someone’s power grabbing existential bog.
Poets move the hearts of nations with clear vision.
We need great engineers, scientists and poets free to do what they do best.
Did I post something here and it got deleted? Dunno why JC is is addressing me.
But what if the problem doesn’t need an engineering solution.,,, or there is no problem.
“Watermelon” is an appropriately insulting characterization of the Green Blob. Much of the objection to nuclear power was KGB dezinformatsiya combined with a general leftist desire to overturn society as it currently exists.
Plus, the Green Blob has little interest in real science or engineering. Nuclear waste is a valuable resource, not an insoluble problem.
No fan of the USSR or their form of authoritarian government BUT don’t forget that US coal mining companies paid for a lot of the anti nuclear loons to help block nukes and hold on to their market. Coal was over 50% of US electrical production.
How did that work out for them?
Those same loons moved on to CAGW.
Fair comment, Drake. And a reminder that the aphorism “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” is very often not true.
Margaret Thatcher partially took up with the CO2 global warming twaddle to aid her war on the coal mining unions. Her sentiments towards nuclear power may have been similarly motivated but long term didn’t achieve much beneficial, IMO.
Looking at opinion polls and the electoral success and influence of the Green Party in Germany probably also led her to see some easy votes to be grabbed. Today all the major political parties seem unable to free themselves from the shackles of green dogma.
The reality of nuclear power in the UK in Maggie’s ‘reign’ was simple.
Coal power was a hostage to the unions.
Interest rates at 15% simply made nuclear power impossible to finance.
Cheap North Sea gas made gas power stains the cheapest option.
So all nuclear new builds stopped. At the time, it was a rational decision.
The REAL damage was done by the Blair government and the EU. Who let the Green lobby dictate energy policy in favour of Renewables. And a decade of low interest rates that could have been used to build new nuclear, go to waste.
This is somewhat confusing. Given that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, why are we bothering with nuclear at all? Just burn coal and be done with it.
What coal?
None in my part of the world.
It’s abundant world wide and can easily be shipped anywhere.
In 1972 when the Club of Rome published Limits to Growth we had 300 years of coal reserves. Written down to zero by Scargill and Thatcher. The question is at what price do they now once again become reserves. The coal is still there. For premium coking coal, it’s probably economic with modern techniques: see the Cumbria project. Steam coal would work against net zero prices, which is why it is kyboshed with carbon taxes. In fact, RATS has been able to run as baseload quite a bit over the winter, since UKA carbon allowance prices collapsed.
Just burn
coalnatural gas and be done with it. Follow the US lead.Right. Development of fluidized-bed coal plants was going very nicely, then stopped by eco-loons and EPA excrement.
Ahh “Nuclear Renaissance”, a phrase that pops up every few years. Hate to spoil the party, but the share of electricity produced by nuclear power is going down, not up. It remains the most expensive way to produce electricity, and is totally dependent on very large government handouts. I will not even mention the, as yet, unsolved problem of what to do with the waste.
It’s hard to get definite answers, but it appears there are more reactors due to close over the next few years than open.
Thorium is no solution to anything, and would require even higher taxpayer subsidies. I’m not quite sure why WUWT readers love nuclear so much, as it is more heavily subsidized than renewable energy.
“I will not even mention the, as yet, unsolved problem of what to do with the waste.”
Return it to the ground, where it came from. As for why we support nuclear energy, it satisfies the fanatic green mafia’s insistence on “net zero”, realeses no particulate matter, and unlike wind and solar energy, is reliable and constant.
Excluding, of course, the examples out of Idaho Falls SL-1, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
“the examples out of Idaho Falls SL-1”
You must not know much about SL-1.
Don’t call it an accident .
I knew people involved in the cleanup .
And they all agreed it was NOT an accident .
Well, let’s supplement your “knowledge” (of agreement from “people involved with the cleanup” that is was not an accident) with the following written description of the Idaho Falls SL-1 nuclear accident events:
“SL-1
Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA, January 3, 1961
The withdrawal of a single control rod caused a catastrophic power surge and steam explosion at the SL-1 boiling water reactor that killed all the workers on duty at the time.
How did it happen?
On January 3, 1961, workers were in the process of reattaching to their drive mechanisms control rods they had disconnected earlier that day to enable test equipment to be inserted in the reactor core. They lifted the central control rod 20 inches, instead of the four inches that was required. This error caused the reactor to go critical and its power to surge 6,000 times higher than its normal level in less than a second. As a result, nuclear fuel vaporized and a steam bubble was created. The steam bubble expanded so quickly that it pushed water above it against the reactor vessel, which caused it to jump out of its support structure. It hit an overhead crane and then returned to the reactor vessel. In the process, all of the water and some of the fuel was released from the reactor vessel. All three workers on duty received lethal doses of radiation, in addition to trauma from the explosion.”
— source: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/brief-history-nuclear-accidents-worldwide
(my bold emphasis added)
An explosion and three workers killed at the site, but “NOT an accident” you say? ROTFL.
Exactly what the Finns are doing at Onkalo.
At least with nuclear, once built, it can and does provide solid reliable electricity.
The question you should be asking , is why would anyone in their right mind bother with wind and solar as grid supplies.
They don’t work, and as is being shown, require subsidies for their whole short life, while producing SFA for much of the time.
‘They don’t work, and as is being shown, require subsidies for their whole short life, while producing SFA for much of the time.’
So the conventional wisdom would have it in WUWT. However, in the real world, things are a little different. The grid I’m on in Australia produces about 70-80% renewables, on average, over the year. It also produces the cheapest wholesale power. The very cheapest power (Hydro) in Tasmania, is also renewable.
Nuclear is not particularly reliable, as it is dependent on water for cooling, often river water, that in drought can mean they must close down (France recently, or is still, experiencing this.)
And as for treating nuclear waste by “Return it to the ground, where it came from” that is nonsense. In the process of producing power, the waste in quite different from what was dug up, often including plutonium, for example.
I am interested. Which grid?
Probably South Australia.
They import lotsa electricity from Victoria and Tasmania.
SA also has the highest domestic retail rates too.
Pushing 40 cents per kWh.
Yes it is South Australia. For the non renewable part S.A. mostly relies on a gas for longer term, batteries for shorter. Incidentally I said “cheapest wholesale” It’s not, it’s a little below average. The coal dependent states pay the highest price (NSW,QLD).
As the Energy Authority says: “The magnitude of the drop ranged from $17 per MWh in Queensland to $38 per MWh in South Australia. This was largely due to more favourable spring-time conditions, with moderate demand and higher renewables output driving lower spot prices.”
All the information you could want about Oz electricity market/prices/ is here:
https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/2024-01/Q4%202023%20Wholesale%20markets%20quarterly%20report.pdf
Batteries are net consumers of power. Over the past year in South Australia they have supplied 100GWh while consuming 136GWh to charge up. That 0.1TWh is just 0.7% of 14TWh of demand.
The reality is that heavily subsidised rooftop solar has led to surpluses that cannibalise nominal wholesale prices, forcing utility solar to curtail midday and try to survive off the pickings after dawn and before dusk of having solar tracking, with excess wind often doing much the same at night. The end result is very costly retail power, and still significant risks of outages. These will multiply as Victoria cuts its coal use and can no longer be relied on to make good power shortages or to help absorb surpluses, with curtailment costs set to escalate sharply.
You are a sad liar, when all is done.
What you believe won’t generate electricity. That takes sound engineering.
In the end the outcome is going to be that nuclear nations will dominate and renewable nations will become poverty ridden and irrelevant. That isn’t based on any belief at all, but on simple cost benefit calculations on whole grid solutions.
So what exactly have I lied about? There’s no dispute about the % of renewables on the S.A. grid, the wholesale price, or anything else. Or do you routinely slander someone presenting information you find inconvenient?
What you are reluctant to admit to it would seem, TonyX, is the hidden costs of wind and solar which includes backup sources for when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine and when demand for electricity is peaking and wind and solar just cannot deliver the essential amounts.
There are many, many estimates of the cost of this backup and the nature of it – coal, gas, hydro, nuclear are the go to sources without the promised battery plants – all sources which are already producing the highest percentage of all electricity with wind and solar making a much smaller share in spite of all the hype and misinformation.
It is a conveniently hidden cost with which you shoot yourself in both feet by not comparing like with like because otherwise you would have no honest claim to make about solar and wind. Coal, gas, hydro and nuclear can back up as well as produce reliably at any time.
This is the exact same issue in the UK and elsewhere where idiots are in power just like you have in Australia. They fooled people globally with COVID-19 and so please don’t push the ‘we are exclusive’ button. Our energy problems are the same and have nothing to do with good science, intelligent thinking,and making us or the planet healthier. We are being played for fools.
We all have the same electricity issues and the same reliable sources and solar and wind don’t meet the necessary standards of reliability and on tap availability. Without some major gifts from storage technology breakthroughs (which could change the ball game completely for all sources of power) solar and wind are going nowhere good for us or the planet generally (and that is without even considering the poor kids mining the rare earth materials).
Leaving the insults, conspiracy theories, and stream of consciousness aside, perhaps you are unaware of the “firmed renewable cost”. This is the cost of wind and solar, backed up by hydro/batteries/synchronous condensers, and a variety of other techs. So what’s the “Firmed” cost of renewables? From a quite conservative media outlet, the cost of “firmed” renewables V alternatives.
However, they get it a little wrong- Firmed renewables are cheaper than coal in LCOE- (LEVELISED COST OF ENERGY) that includes the cost of building the plants, and the fuel (for fossils- as mentioned) Nuclear is so expensive it’s off the chart.
Quote:
Wind and solar power remain the cheapest route to decarbonizing the energy grid, even after including transmission and storage costs needed to manage their variable output.
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/renewables-are-cheapest-even-with-poles-wires-and-batteries-added-in-20231219-p5esl6
Based on a new “CSIRO report”.
Sadly, that organisation capitulated to the “green religion” some years ago now
https://csirostaff.org.au/news/2022/11/20/csiro-chiefs-exit-offers-labor-rare-opportunity-to-alter-direction-of-australias-science-agency/
Exactly.
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/
Mycle Schneider has been an opponent of nuclear power since the 1980s so can hardly be said to be an unbiased observer.
PS. I have met him.
You may repeat the lie, but that doesn’t make it true…
“… more heavily subsidized than renewable energy…”
I doubt it. Maybe you can prove that assertion.
Nuclear is only high cost because some governments have regulated it out of existence. The French demonstrated that it was possible to establish a nuclear fleet at low cost providing up to 70% of supply. If they could do it, it could be done again, and given technological advance it ought to be cheaper in real terms.
“. . . the accident at Fukushima Daiichi still looms large in the public’s consciousness.”
There were interesting problems that all seem to occur at the same time. The bulkhead to protect against tsunamis was designed to protect against all previous tsunamis. Unfortunately, the Fukushima tsunami was higher than any past tsunamis. The backup power to keep the cooling pumps running, was the power grid–which had failed. The backup generators were all in a basement area and were flooded–thus they were unavailable. There was another backup source, but the heavy cables required cranes to connect to it, and there were no cranes available. Since there were no cooling pumps, the core eventually melted. Still, the only casualty was a worker who didn’t wear his protective gear properly.
I don’t believe there was a single casualty from radioactivity One worker died of a heart attack, was all.
Depends on if one wishes to categorize the people living within the initial government-ordered 20 km (12 mi) evacuation zone around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant as “casualties” or not.
Also, depends on whether or not one wants to talk about direct or indirect casualties “from radioactivity.”
“Nobody died as a direct result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. However, in 2018 one worker in charge of measuring radiation at the plant died of lung cancer caused by radiation exposure. In addition, there have been more than 2,000 disaster-related deaths. This classification includes deaths caused by suicide, stress, and interruption of medical care.”
— https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident
(my bold emphasis added)
On the Brink: The Inside Story of Fukushima Daiichi Paperback – December 25, 2019
by Ryusho Kadota
Kadota was the platnt manager. He claimed no cancer deaths from radiation but the all had serious cases of radiation sickness.
He pulled his pants down in front of the meddling prime minster on a video call. Lol.
Correction, it was Masao Yoshida that was the Fukushima site supervisor.
Nuclear Plants by Russia
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
.
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
.
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
.
Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places
They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced
Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation,
Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050.
.
Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year.
.
From the above article:
“The global nuclear comeback is real . . .”
. . . and, I observe, will be some 20-plus years in the making based on the average timeline now required to site, obtain governmental and environmental approvals, build, and bring online a single nuclear power plant.
The cited “proof” of said comeback is nothing of the sort.
And the capital costs for nuke plants per KW is 14 times more expensive then combined cycle natural gas plants.
Not if you select the right design. Hinkley Point is not the right design.
Please cite one example of a nuclear power plant that is “the right design” . . . and provide the average cost of its electrical power output ($/kWh) compared to FF power plants in the same region.
You’re right, it doesn’t add up.
Barakah. 5.6 GW for $25bn, or under $4.5bn/GW. 44TWh/a (90% CF) at 6% capital charge gives $34/MWh, plus fuel and O&M of a few $/MWh. That’s for a Western approved (Korean) design. You can get a Russian one a bit cheaper. See the list of overseas projects listed by wilpost just above. That’s fully competitive against a new CCGT in Europe even if it paid no carbon taxes. It certainly beats the pants off offshore wind at $120/MWh+, before grid integration costs.
Clearly a comeback depends on a more sensible regulatory regime, rather than one designed to prevent nuclear development. Once that happens in some countries it is likely to spread to others. Recent global energy insecurities are promoting that change.
If we had ham we could have ham and eggs if only we had eggs.
But we are the chickens who can lay the eggs of better regulation.
If the West is going to politically constrain the supply side of fossil fuels and heavily tax fossil fuel, then a country like Canada really has no choice other than pay fossil fuel prices that are artificially propped and spiraling or go nuke. At least with nuke you can continue to Go Green without being vulnerable to the anti-Fossil fuel green narrative. Yet the powerless green ground level operatives hate nukes. So we shall see how big the movement back into nuke power goes. Biden indirectly has enabling the movement toward nukes by constraining natural gas supply. This is very bad news for us in PA where we have enormous reserves of natural gas… also New York.
Politicians like Biden, Trudeau et al, love anything that is centrally controllable like giant nuke plants and big grids…. they work equity and taxes into them to redistribute our income into the nuke/grid energy market. They can dictate prices because it is a government subsided monopoly.
The last thing they want is truly ground breaking energy tech that would enable scalable electrical generation storage and distribution for private and decentralized off grid or side grid solutions. The last thing they want is to economically empower local people with real capital. In their minds, if people are going to be prosperous that have to fit the program….. it has to be through a system of centrally controlled markets (tax, subsidy, pay check deductible, 401K, commodities, energy etc), which means very few Americans and Canadians will be prosperous over the next 50-60 years. All capital –businesses will be owned and controlled by stakeholders who run everything including our Government….or make government comparatively superfluous.
Nuke fits the program except for the low level green operatives.
Who needs nukes when there is plenty of cheap natural gas…. nobody!
This is the prime reason I scratch my head with all those advocating for nuclear power in WUWT.
Nuke power has the highest capital cost per KW and combined cycle natural gas has the lowest cost per KW. The different is a factor of 14-15.. Then add the cost of replacing a working natural gas plant with a Nuke plant and then the cost goes crazy. Why not just stick with natural gas we are already burning….. and expand it…. it’s 15 x cheaper to expand it than nuclear power?
It is the cheapest energy we have right now.
Advocating for nuke power just clouds the political issue and undermines the clear logical objection to expensive green solution power options and fossil fuel supply side political constraints. Why trade one expensive option (wind solar) for another (nuke power). Makes no sense at all.
If we have our best interests in mind, then we should always have our logic clear and fight for cheap energy. This means fighting hard to cut through all the political BS to fight for free and competitive fossil fuel energy markets and the end of political leveraging by big energy via the climate fear mongering narrative.
See statistical graph that clearly supports what I am saying.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/654401/estimated-capital-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/
The US is not everywhere. Not everywhere in the US has access to cheap gas. It’s quite a big country.
Very nice, we need way more information on the nuclear waste.