All I can say is keep it up!! And thanks so much Michael, for all your efforts.
Not to sound snooty but I never went for the man-made warming being deadly stuff from the beginning. Made no sense considering the amount of co2 400 ppm and the opposing scientists being at the highest levels, Happer, Linden, Soon and so many others in the thousands from a group of signatories Happer collected at one point.
Secondly, being a carpenter, you need a good degree of common sense, and we often associate with engineers in building. all my engineering friends said that renewables lack the 'energy density' to do the job expected on large scale, not possible.
The multi billions wasted that could have done so much real good, makes me sad.
I was involved in the financings done for EDF in the 70's as France implemented one of the highest risk national ventures switching to mainly nuclear. Anyone who has really studied nuclear plant performance in countries who take safety seriously, not Chernobl, know how much safer nuclear is.
If Biden can persuade the world that nuclear is highly renewable, he will have done a great service
Please exercise caution in believing that Biden's administration sincerely supports nuclear. I hope it is true. But I also remember that anti-nuclear apparatchiks have a long history of appearing to hold out support with one hand, while holding a rock in readiness in the hand behind their back. Or simply claiming not to oppose nuclear with weak, meaningless, highly qualified statements, while continuing to oppose any physical implementation of nuclear in the real world.
For example, a tax credit alone may not be enough as long as "must take" rules remain in place favoring renewables.
"...Apocalypse Never, which argues that only nuclear energy can guarantee universal prosperity and environmental progress." Are we sure that ONLY nuclear energy can guarantee universal prosperity and environmental progress? Could it be possible that prosperity and progress could supported by a mix of renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels, smart grids, conservatism, and more? Or do you really believe that we should spread FB NPPs around the 180+ countries of the world?
Specifically commenting on: "All of this was predicted by an obscure German economist in the peer-reviewed economics literature back in 2013. He found that the economic value of wind would decline 40% once it becomes 30% of electricity, while the value of solar would drop by 50% when it became just 15% of electricity, and that’s roughly what has occurred."
The price cannibalization of solar and wind have some interesting political implications, and more importantly, price cannibalization describes nuclear's esoteric economic problems.
Political implications of solar price-cannibalization:
1) Solar farms serving a region will likely go bankrupt together as revenues systemically fall short of debt service payments. Bankruptcies are visible and make for easy political targeting of progressive energy policy.
2) Combined-cycle natural gas (CCNG) and coal, which data shows suffer negligible price cannibalization, remain profitable even with higher generation expenses. For example, when electricity production reaches its limits during California's windless August nights, the wholesale revenue of $900+ per MWH goes primarily to CCNG and imported Coal generation, while solar and wind collect almost none of it. In comparison, California's mid-day August generation frequently earns around $7 or less per MWH. The revenue disparity means that load-following, carbon-producing electricity generation remains generously economic despite being more costly to produce. Consequently, these load-following, carbon-producing companies are profitable and can remain politically active indefinitely.
Nuclear suffers base-load economic issues:
Current nuclear has similar economic problems to solar and wind, although the problems are less widely understood. Diablo Canyon, for example, is fairly cheap electricity generation. However, PG&E would be more profitable with Diablo Canyon closed.
Base-load economics:
Diablo Canyon is always-on, must-run, base-load. Diablo Canyon always produces the same amount of electricity per hour, and is therefore a price-taker in the day-ahead ISO markets. Diablo Canyon takes the high prices at night, as well as the low or negative prices during the day, making it marginally profitable as a stand-alone entity. However, the primary issue with base-load is that it makes load-following less profitable, and nuclear plant owners typically have a portfolio of load-following CCNG or coal plants.
PG&E makes its generation money primarily with its multi-gigawatt CCNG plants on the high-priced dusk and dawn electricity demand. A must-run gigawatt nuclear plant has a material effect on the final marginal price of every hourly day-ahead-market closing bid affecting the real price garnered for every megawatt produced.
PG&E owns both nuclear base-load and CCNG load-following. PG&E lobbied to close Diablo Canyon because reductions in always-on base-load add to the magnitude of the daily post-solar peaks, increase the closing marginal bids in the day-ahead markets. (Of course that's not the official justification.) Closing Diablo Canyon is economic for PG&E. Closing Diablo Canyon will increase the nightly ramp rate and marginal closing ISO prices, and every MWH produced by PG&E's CCNG receives that higher marginal price. Diablo Canyon’s biggest issues are not solar competition, spent fuel storage, public opinion, safety, or regulation. Nuclear’s issue is primarily base-load economics. Nuclear base-load cannibalizes marginal load-following prices.
As an aside, nuclear plants made economic sense prior to the ISO markets where generation and distribution lived under the same government-regulated-monopoly power company. The only way nuclear wins the ISO economics game is to become load-following.
The day the first load-following nuclear plant comes online is the day the ISO markets turn in favor of nuclear and the day the tide turns for carbon emissions.
All I can say is keep it up!! And thanks so much Michael, for all your efforts.
Not to sound snooty but I never went for the man-made warming being deadly stuff from the beginning. Made no sense considering the amount of co2 400 ppm and the opposing scientists being at the highest levels, Happer, Linden, Soon and so many others in the thousands from a group of signatories Happer collected at one point.
Secondly, being a carpenter, you need a good degree of common sense, and we often associate with engineers in building. all my engineering friends said that renewables lack the 'energy density' to do the job expected on large scale, not possible.
The multi billions wasted that could have done so much real good, makes me sad.
Thanks again,
Don Pascucci
I was involved in the financings done for EDF in the 70's as France implemented one of the highest risk national ventures switching to mainly nuclear. Anyone who has really studied nuclear plant performance in countries who take safety seriously, not Chernobl, know how much safer nuclear is.
If Biden can persuade the world that nuclear is highly renewable, he will have done a great service
Please exercise caution in believing that Biden's administration sincerely supports nuclear. I hope it is true. But I also remember that anti-nuclear apparatchiks have a long history of appearing to hold out support with one hand, while holding a rock in readiness in the hand behind their back. Or simply claiming not to oppose nuclear with weak, meaningless, highly qualified statements, while continuing to oppose any physical implementation of nuclear in the real world.
For example, a tax credit alone may not be enough as long as "must take" rules remain in place favoring renewables.
Great article :) Thank you!
"...Apocalypse Never, which argues that only nuclear energy can guarantee universal prosperity and environmental progress." Are we sure that ONLY nuclear energy can guarantee universal prosperity and environmental progress? Could it be possible that prosperity and progress could supported by a mix of renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels, smart grids, conservatism, and more? Or do you really believe that we should spread FB NPPs around the 180+ countries of the world?
Specifically commenting on: "All of this was predicted by an obscure German economist in the peer-reviewed economics literature back in 2013. He found that the economic value of wind would decline 40% once it becomes 30% of electricity, while the value of solar would drop by 50% when it became just 15% of electricity, and that’s roughly what has occurred."
@MichaelShellenberger and team
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs modeled solar economics for California and concluded the same in 2012. https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/changes-economic-value-variable
And, more recent work shows that the price-cannibalization effect accelerates as solar generation capacity increases market penetration. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988319303470
The price cannibalization of solar and wind have some interesting political implications, and more importantly, price cannibalization describes nuclear's esoteric economic problems.
Political implications of solar price-cannibalization:
1) Solar farms serving a region will likely go bankrupt together as revenues systemically fall short of debt service payments. Bankruptcies are visible and make for easy political targeting of progressive energy policy.
2) Combined-cycle natural gas (CCNG) and coal, which data shows suffer negligible price cannibalization, remain profitable even with higher generation expenses. For example, when electricity production reaches its limits during California's windless August nights, the wholesale revenue of $900+ per MWH goes primarily to CCNG and imported Coal generation, while solar and wind collect almost none of it. In comparison, California's mid-day August generation frequently earns around $7 or less per MWH. The revenue disparity means that load-following, carbon-producing electricity generation remains generously economic despite being more costly to produce. Consequently, these load-following, carbon-producing companies are profitable and can remain politically active indefinitely.
Nuclear suffers base-load economic issues:
Current nuclear has similar economic problems to solar and wind, although the problems are less widely understood. Diablo Canyon, for example, is fairly cheap electricity generation. However, PG&E would be more profitable with Diablo Canyon closed.
Base-load economics:
Diablo Canyon is always-on, must-run, base-load. Diablo Canyon always produces the same amount of electricity per hour, and is therefore a price-taker in the day-ahead ISO markets. Diablo Canyon takes the high prices at night, as well as the low or negative prices during the day, making it marginally profitable as a stand-alone entity. However, the primary issue with base-load is that it makes load-following less profitable, and nuclear plant owners typically have a portfolio of load-following CCNG or coal plants.
PG&E makes its generation money primarily with its multi-gigawatt CCNG plants on the high-priced dusk and dawn electricity demand. A must-run gigawatt nuclear plant has a material effect on the final marginal price of every hourly day-ahead-market closing bid affecting the real price garnered for every megawatt produced.
PG&E owns both nuclear base-load and CCNG load-following. PG&E lobbied to close Diablo Canyon because reductions in always-on base-load add to the magnitude of the daily post-solar peaks, increase the closing marginal bids in the day-ahead markets. (Of course that's not the official justification.) Closing Diablo Canyon is economic for PG&E. Closing Diablo Canyon will increase the nightly ramp rate and marginal closing ISO prices, and every MWH produced by PG&E's CCNG receives that higher marginal price. Diablo Canyon’s biggest issues are not solar competition, spent fuel storage, public opinion, safety, or regulation. Nuclear’s issue is primarily base-load economics. Nuclear base-load cannibalizes marginal load-following prices.
As an aside, nuclear plants made economic sense prior to the ISO markets where generation and distribution lived under the same government-regulated-monopoly power company. The only way nuclear wins the ISO economics game is to become load-following.
It is possible for nuclear to load-follow, but it’s not here yet: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573317302875
The day the first load-following nuclear plant comes online is the day the ISO markets turn in favor of nuclear and the day the tide turns for carbon emissions.
What is the short answer to the objection that the there's no safe way to get rid of the radioactive waste generated by nuclear plants?