[GHung]

I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.

And let's not forget that the cost math for solar and wind are still improving rapidly. It seems like over time, with all the regulations, the math for nuclear gets worse (perhaps largely due to the risk).

Now, you add in battery backup to eliminate the intermittency issue, with the cost math for batteries also greatly improving over time, and it seems like we have a good trend here.

If the math keeps working, the green energy replacement will do the job with no pushing from government over the next 3 to 5 decades. If it doesn't, by then surely even the deniers will see how bad things have gotten re AGW and humanity will see the need to greatly reduce FF's whether it's more expensive or not.

In 3 to 5 decades, we might even get lucky and have workable fission. Then we get to deal with the Jevon's Paradox madness again, no doubt -- though what we SHOULD be doing if that happens is using all that extra energy (at least initially) to rapidly sequester vast amounts of CO2 to mitigate the AGW effects.

As for the ultimate results, my vote would be for humanity mostly screwing it up, over time.

[Yonnipun]

I wonder why even talk about nuclear when there is no solution to the nuclear waste problem.

[Plantagenet]

I wonder why even talk about nuclear when there is no solution to the nuclear waste problem.

There are several scientifically viable solutions to the nuclear waste problem but the politicians won't implement them.

The most basic solution is to bury the nuclear waste. In fact, the US spent billions on building a world-class nuclear waste disposal site in Nevada. But then Harry Reid (D) became Senate Leader and blocked the use of that site. Harry Reid single handedly stopped development of the largest huge source of carbon-free energy in the US, i.e. nuclear energy.

When they line up the evil people in hell who caused global warming, Harry Reid will have a special spot right next to the flames. Coal-fired flames.

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.

Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.

[Plantagenet]

Nuclear ... has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.

Its not an either/or choice. The best way to go would be to use as much solar/wind/hydro as you can, but if need someing to supplement the grid when the wind don't blow and the sun isn't shining, consider using nuclear.

The important thing is to totally get rid of all the coal-fired and NG-fired power plants and all the gas and diesel powered vehicles as soon as possible. The planet is going to cook if we don't stop using fossil fuels like yesterday.

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.

Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.

A nuclear power plant can be throttled up or down withing a range as needed by the grid and on a fairly quick response time. No it is not running 100 percent all the time but it is giving you the amount of power you need when you need it not just when the sun shines or the wind blows.

[kublikhan]

I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.

Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.

A nuclear power plant can be throttled up or down withing a range as needed by the grid and on a fairly quick response time. No it is not running 100 percent all the time but it is giving you the amount of power you need when you need it not just when the sun shines or the wind blows.

Umm, that is what dispatchable means vtsnowedin:

Because load must be balanced on a continuous basis, generating units with the capability to vary output to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or than units using intermittent resource to operate. The LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables, because comparing them must be done carefully.

Levelized Costs

[ROCKMAN]

P – “The best way to go would be to use as much solar/wind/hydro as you can, but if need someing to supplement the grid when the wind don't blow and the sun isn't shining, consider using nuclear.”. Exactly. Once again use Texas as a model. Thanks to our booming population and economy our electricity consumption has increased 27% in just the last 10 years. A big reason why we’re the largest consuming state with 2X as much as #2 FL.

And we use our nukes and wind power to cover the gap. And now we’re having solar increasing too. And maybe even short term grid storage if the E.ON pilot project proves commercial. Which is very fortunate since without them we would have built more NG and coal fired plants…guaranteed.