Technology

59204 readers

3791 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

948

40% of US electricity is now emissions-free (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

227 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn’t particularly expensive.

I wish that were true. Nuclear plants built in the 60s and 70s (but still operating today) was losing money in Ohio. So the power companies bribed the Republican Ohio Speaker of the House $60 million dollars to pass a law that citizens have to pay extra fees totally over $1 billion dollars to power plants so that power companies can make a profit on nuclear. The bill was passed, and signed into law by the governor of Ohio, and years passed before the investigation found the bribery scandal.

That former Ohio Speaker of the House was sentenced to 20 years in prison finally.

The bad bribed-passed law is still on the books in Ohio and citizens are still paying extra to artificially make nuclear profitable for the power company. Here's just a small source for the whole sorted story..

So no, even old built nuclear power plants are still more expensive that nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.

[–] DanglingFury@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Besides maybe coal

[–] ironeagl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They've had to keep upgrading them - the percentage of nuclear is the same, but no new plants have been built, so that extra power has come from research on how close to the red line they can actually run.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

New reactors just came online in Georgia this year. A $15 billion dollar planned project that cost $30 billion with overruns.

So new or old, nuclear is really expensive electricity.

[–] ironeagl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A coal power plant is rougly the same cost per GW as solar or wind, doesn't mean we should build more of them. I agree it's expensive, but so were solar and wind a couple decades ago. Government investment helped research, development, scaling up - imagine if that had been done in the '80s, we wouldn't be building natural gas plants right now.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

A coal power plant is rougly the same cost per GW as solar or wind

Incorrect. Costs listed per KW of generation:

Coal power $4,074 (3.07 x the cost of solar PV and 2.37x the cost of onshore wind)
Wind power (onshore) $1,718
Solar photovoltaic $1,327

source

I agree it’s expensive, but so were solar and wind a couple decades ago. Government investment helped research, development, scaling up - imagine if that had been done in the '80s

The first commercial nuclear power plant in the USA came online in 1958. source That's 66 years ago. If time was going to make it cheaper we would have seen that by now. Instead the most recent reactors to come online, which occurred just this year, were projected to cost $14 billion and instead are cost $31 billion! Even worst, this isn't an entirely new nuclear power plant, its just two additional reactors at an existing operational plant. source

Nuclear just costs too much for what you get at the end.

[–] ironeagl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

Ah, perhaps my source was off. Thanks for the additional data.

But looking at it another way, nuclear is less than twice coal. Estimating the cost of that georgia plant would put it at $16-17B, so those overruns would be atypical.

But my main point on cost is that government investment has been lacking in nuclear compared to renewables: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/12/27/why-is-solar-energy-getting-250-times-more-in-federal-tax-credits-than-nuclear/?sh=4a783c3221cf

Without investment, it's going to stay just as expensive. And the main regulating body not having a mandate to develop the technology has just been holding us back.

[–] wikibot@lemmy.world 1 points 10 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^