Comment on 40% of US electricity is now emissions-free
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 months agoThat’s a good thing. It means lots of hours of well paying engineering and construction work.
Comment on 40% of US electricity is now emissions-free
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 months agoThat’s a good thing. It means lots of hours of well paying engineering and construction work.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Nearly all of nuclear in the USA was built decades ago. Instead of being “paid off” and being cheaper, its still more expensive to generate electricity with nuclear than nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 months ago
I’m not sure what you are referencing, but there are good reasons why nuclear power is expensive: lots of engineering and construction hours, strick safety and quality standards for design and materials, and no externalities, since decommissioning and waste handling have to be accounted and baked into the final utility cost to consumers. In other words, even if it’s difficult to pay off a nuclear power plant (in a liberalized energy market of course) it’s still money well spent. The same requirements and expectations should have to apply to other industries as well.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Are you arguing its a “good thing” for existing built plants or for propose plants yet to be built? I wasn’t sure, but the result is the same for both. Nuclear is too expensive for what it provides in the face of better alternatives. I’m happy to back my statements with sources. Which position were you arguing?
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that’s consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I’m not positive).
Our best outlook for the future is for us to build at least as much of these are necessary to clean up our nuclear waste.
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 months ago
My position is simply that it’s a good sign if nuclear power is more expensive than other types. We should be suspicious of anything that claims to offer a better deal.
ironeagl@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Nuclear is the most regulated one. Start requiring full recycling / disposal of solar or wind and how expensive do they get?
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Nuclear is the most regulated: True. Accidents in nuclear have the most consequence, by far, of any generation source.
I would imagine that if we’re just going for disposal, solar and wind are still pretty cheap. With zero recycling wind turbine blades can just be buried after their 25 year life cycle. source.
Same landfill disposal option is available for solar panels at $1 to $5 per panel. source
This would be the level of disposal nuclear has, except low and high level nuclear waste is much more costly and potentially destructive even after disposal.
ironeagl@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Burying it in the ground with no considerations for leachants is not what nuclear disposal is.
JamesFire@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It’s not significantly more expensive though. en.wikipedia.org/…/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
And even if it was, it has other benefits.
Like using significantly less land, and being safer.
It can also work as a source of heat for district heating or various industrial processes, and since the plants themselves have no emissions, they can be reasonably placed in cities for this purpose without harming people. Using heat directly is more efficient than converting it to and from electricity.
Nuclear has it’s place.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’m looking at that source it shows:
-nuclear $6,695-7,547 /kw -solar pv $1,327 /kw
At the most generous calculation that puts nuclear power at 5 x more expensive that solar PV. So if you have a theoretical pure electricity bill on solar PV of $100/month, your theoretical pure electricity bill on nuclear of $500/month.
I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that nuclear is not significantly more expensive.
wikibot@lemmy.world [bot] 5 months ago
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regulatory environment, some or all wholesale costs may be passed through to consumers. These are costs per unit of energy, typically represented as dollars/megawatt hour (wholesale). The calculations also assist governments in making decisions regarding energy policy. On average the levelized cost of electricity from utility scale solar power and onshore wind power is less than from coal and gas-fired power stations,: TS-25 but this varies a lot depending on location.: 6–65^article^ ^|^ ^about^