The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

Electric Buses Are Hurting the Oil Industry - Bloomberg -- these are battery-powered buses and hybrid-electric ones, not electric trolleybuses, the kind of bus that gets its electricity from overhead cables.

Electric buses were seen as a joke at an industry conference in Belgium seven years ago when the Chinese manufacturer BYD Co. showed an early model. ...

Suddenly, buses with battery-powered motors are a serious matter with the potential to revolutionize city transport—and add to the forces reshaping the energy industry. ...

The numbers are staggering. China had about 99 percent of the 385,000 electric buses on the roads worldwide in 2017, accounting for 17 percent of the country’s entire fleet. Every five weeks, Chinese cities add 9,500 of the zero-emissions transporters—the equivalent of London’s entire working fleet, according Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

China got into electric buses because its cities are so smoggy, with about 1.6 million deaths a year attributed to that smog. Buses consume about 30 times as much fuel as cars, and to date, electric buses have displaced about 5 times as much fuel as electric cars.

Outside China, several cities have been acquiring electric buses, even if not as many as China.

This is worth mentioning in the context of renewable energy, because the most successful renewable sources make electricity.

It's also worth mentioning that the buses in question are powered by whatever the local power generation mix is; and that even in places like Denmark, where wind power has been massively adopted, that's FAR from 'emissions free'.

For electric vehicles to be worthy of the tag 'emissions free', they must be recharged in a location with very low emissions from electricity generation - like France, Sweden, Norway, or Ontario.

Electric buses in China are doing a good job of reducing the pollution levels in the cities. But they are not doing much to lower emissions overall. In China, an electric bus runs mostly on coal.

 

[lpetrich]

Wind, Solar, & Batteries Continue To Squeeze Out Fossil Fuels, Finds BNEF | CleanTechnica
With lithium-ion batteries' prices falling 79% with 2010, it is becoming evident that a missing piece of the renewable-energy puzzle is falling into place.

At first site, wind and solar electricity generation seem like they are trading the vagaries of powerplant-fuel markets for the vagaries of weather. But weather is often very predictable, though only on average for more than a few days. Arid areas often have very little obstruction of incoming sunlight by clouds, and likewise for dry seasons. Likewise, the Earth's rotation is very predictable, as are solar eclipses. In fact, some people have gotten solar-eclipse light curves by monitoring the output of their solar panels.

Energiewende passes solar eclipse stress test | Clean Energy Wire
What blackout? How solar-reliant power grids passed the eclipse test
German and European Power Grids, Civilization Intact Following Solar Eclipse | Greentech Media
Total Solar Eclipse of 2017
Eclipse | Vernier

But such predictability does not get around the problem of intermittency. So one ought to store energy from when the wind is blowing and when the Sun is visible for when the wind is not blowing and the Sun is blocked off. The most common energy-storage technique has been pumped hydroelectric storage, but batteries are now starting to challenge that:

Falling Grid-Scale Storage Prices Create "Watershed Moment" | CleanTechnica

RTO Insider reports she enthused that the energy storage industry will grow to 35 gigawatts by 2025 and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs along the way. Energy storage will account for $4 billion in cumulative operational savings during that time while avoiding 3.6 million metric tons of carbon emissions.

Christopher Parent, ISO-NE’s director of market development, told the conference his organization had no storage in its interconnection queue a couple years ago. Now it has more than 500 megawatts of grid-scale energy storage proposals in the queue, a number that has been growing even in recent weeks, he said.

...
Dan Finn-Foley, senior energy storage analyst for GTM Research, said “energy storage costs have dropped dramatically over the past few years” and projected the trend to continue. ESA figures show the costs for large-scale storage systems declined by 50% since 2014, and Finn-Foley estimates those costs will drop an additional 35% by 2022.

This will be good not only for renewable sources, but also for coal and nuclear.

 

[lpetrich]

Europe Faces Another Solar Boom, Increasingly Unsubsidized | Greentech Media

Europe was once the world's biggest solar spender, until the region's PV market fell into a structural decline after subsidies were pulled back. Now Europe is on the upswing once again — this time, with far less government spending.

As Subsidies Phase Out, Wind Still Powers Ahead | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
In the US, subsidies for wind energy are due to be phased out in 2020, and for solar energy in 2022.

I find it welcome that subsidies are being phased out. This phasing out has the effect of slowing down renewable-energy development, but it has a beneficient political side effect: giving at least the appearance of being independent of taxpayers' money. If anything, it may help in directing attention to fossil-fuel subsidies.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Here in Houston, many of our Metro buses are now electric. And Texas now leads the nation in wind power. 17% of our electrical energy is now generated by wind.

 

[lpetrich]

Here in Houston, many of our Metro buses are now electric.

Presumably battery-powered ones. There is a kind of electric bus that is powered from overhead cables, the electric trolleybus. This kind of bus uses pairs of wires, since it is difficult to complete a circuit through typical pavement. Electric rail vehicles need only one overhead wire, or else one extra rail, since their rails can complete the circuit.

 

[bilby]

Here in Houston, many of our Metro buses are now electric.

Presumably battery-powered ones. There is a kind of electric bus that is powered from overhead cables, the electric trolleybus. This kind of bus uses pairs of wires, since it is difficult to complete a circuit through typical pavement. Electric rail vehicles need only one overhead wire, or else one extra rail, since their rails can complete the circuit.

Third rail electric power has a lot of problems though - it doesn't work for high speed services, and it's no good for areas shared with pedestrians, which is the typical case for buses and tramway/light rail setups. Heavy rail can use it - the London Underground uses a four rail system, and the London and South East England heavy rail uses a three rail system with the return current via the traction rails.

My uncle, who was a scheduler for British Rail before his retirement, used to say that he was strongly in favour of the third-rail system, because while it didn't stop people from trespassing on the railways, it did at least usually stop them from doing so twice.

Of course, overhead power can also be a major hazard, but generally you need to be a lot stupider to get caught out by it. Having said which, the standard 25kV used for overhead railway power is quite capable of jumping a large gap to a well earthed human; He needn't tough the wires in order to be incinerated. A chap who was stealing radios from cars on a rail transport wagon at Wakefield (the car loading facility next to Westgate station) found that out the hard way back in the 1980s when the East Coast line was electrified. They had to use dental records to identify him, and the whole area smelled like BBQ pork for a week.

 

[lpetrich]

Fox News Slams California Rooftop Solar Initiative With Lies, Half-Truths, & Distortions | CleanTechnica

The California Energy Commission has mandated that most new residential structures — single family homes, condominium complexes, and apartment buildings — have rooftop solar systems beginning in 2020. While most people who care about the Earth are applauding the move, Fox News has greeted the decision with derision and scorn.

Amber Beck, a spokesperson for the California Energy Commission, says, “For residential homeowners, based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 to an average monthly payment, but save consumers $80 on monthly heating, cooling, and lighting bills. On average, the 2019 standards will increase the cost of constructing a new home by about $9,500 but will save $19,000 in energy and maintenance costs over 30 years.”

However, Fox News found some people with contrary opinions, like the Republican leader of the California State Assembly.

Why The Energy Storage Problem Won't Be A Problem For Long | CleanTechnica

... Sure enough, here comes the US Department of Energy with a solution: a newly announced round of $30 million in funding for next-generation technology leading to batteries that can store electricity in bulk for at least 10 hours.

At that scale, energy storage can solve three problems at once: it can funnel more wind and solar into the grid, it can shrink reliance on coal baseload power plants, and it can push gas “peaker” plants out of the picture. Problem solved!

By the way, 10 hours is just for starters. The new round of funding aims at systems that can shoot electricity into the grid for up to 100 hours, which puts nuclear power on even shakier ground than it is now (that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms).

...
The background material for the funding announcement also hammers home the aim of enabling “a greater share of low-cost, intermittent sources of wind and solar in the future generation mix.”

ARPA-E (Energy) put out a report on the prospects of improved storage, noting that 10-hour storage would have some performance features that would enable various design shortcuts. Such shortcuts may be necessary to reduce costs enough to make utilities willing to install something that they are not likely to use very often.

…the future unsubsidized levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of these technologies will be at or below 2.5 cents/kWh.8 These low prices for wind and solar create a substantial opportunity for the United States, through the reduction in electricity bills and through an increase in the ability to maintain low natural gas prices for use in the chemical industry or for export.

 

[lpetrich]

Renewable & Fossil Fuel Organizations Oppose "Emergency" Coal & Nuclear Bailout | CleanTechnica

An unlikely coalition of renewable energy, natural gas, energy efficiency, and oil industry associations have collectively submitted their concerns to the US Department of Energy regarding the possibility of effectively bailing out and subsidizing uneconomic and aging power plants that would otherwise be forced to retire, such as FirstEnergy Solutions’ recent request for the same.

In a move which is striking in its bilateral and bipartisan support, a combination of American industry associations have submitted a legal analysis to the Department of Energy (DOE) effectively condemning the misuse of Government power to prop up coal and nuclear power plants which, for one reason or another, are being forced into retirement. The group of associations includes Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), the American Petroleum Insititute (API), the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGA), and the Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) — a cross-section of American energy voices which speak almost louder than words.

As renewable energy gets better and better, this could be followed by more such pushes for bailouts. It's not quite the twilight of the fossil fuels (Fossilenergiedämmerung?), even for electricity generation, but it looks like a foretaste of what is to come.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Here in Houston, many of our Metro buses are now electric.

Presumably battery-powered ones. There is a kind of electric bus that is powered from overhead cables, the electric trolleybus. This kind of bus uses pairs of wires, since it is difficult to complete a circuit through typical pavement. Electric rail vehicles need only one overhead wire, or else one extra rail, since their rails can complete the circuit.

Our electric buses are battery powered. Houston is too big in area to string overhead wires everywhere. Our metro trains use overhead wires, but they are nowhere as extensive as our bus system.

 

[lpetrich]

Statoil Officially Changes Name To Equinor | CleanTechnica

After announcing its intention earlier in the year, Norwegian multinational oil and gas company Statoil has today officially changed its name to Equinor after the company’s annual general meeting approved the name change on Tuesday.

Energy companies and utilities around the world are looking to not only transition away from reliance on fossil fuels, but are also looking to ensure that the world knows they are doing so. In October of 2017, Danish energy giant DONG Energy announced that it would change its name to Ørsted, and in late March Swedish power company Vattenfall made the cosmetic decision to change its logo.

DONG = Danish Oil and Natural Gas
Ørsted = Oersted = discoverer of magnetic fields made by electric currents

 

[bilby]

Statoil Officially Changes Name To Equinor | CleanTechnica

After announcing its intention earlier in the year, Norwegian multinational oil and gas company Statoil has today officially changed its name to Equinor after the company’s annual general meeting approved the name change on Tuesday.

Energy companies and utilities around the world are looking to not only transition away from reliance on fossil fuels, but are also looking to ensure that the world knows they are doing so. In October of 2017, Danish energy giant DONG Energy announced that it would change its name to Ørsted, and in late March Swedish power company Vattenfall made the cosmetic decision to change its logo.

DONG = Danish Oil and Natural Gas
Ørsted = Oersted = discoverer of magnetic fields made by electric currents

That's nice. But image is no substitute for substance.

 

[Underseer]

What about nuclear fusion, like ITER, projected to produce energy by 2025?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-fusion-project-reaches-key-halfway-milestone

EB

As scientists and engineers have been saying for decades, we already have the perfect fusion generator.

The purpose of fusion research is not to produce a new power source. It is to learn more about how the universe works and maybe discover a couple of new technologies in the process of trying to make it work.

In fact one possible solution to the duck curve is to put solar satellites in orbit and beam the energy down at lower frequencies. My granduncle worked on a design for a receiving station that lets higher frequency E=M pass through so that the land beneath the (admittedly large) receiving stations could still be used for farming.

With the right arrangement of solar satellites, we could get solar energy more or less 24-7 using the technology we already have. Heck, we could have put solar satellites up decades ago.

 

[bilby]

What about nuclear fusion, like ITER, projected to produce energy by 2025?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-fusion-project-reaches-key-halfway-milestone

EB

As scientists and engineers have been saying for decades, we already have the perfect fusion generator.

The purpose of fusion research is not to produce a new power source. It is to learn more about how the universe works and maybe discover a couple of new technologies in the process of trying to make it work.

In fact one possible solution to the duck curve is to put solar satellites in orbit and beam the energy down at lower frequencies. My granduncle worked on a design for a receiving station that lets higher frequency E=M pass through so that the land beneath the (admittedly large) receiving stations could still be used for farming.

With the right arrangement of solar satellites, we could get solar energy more or less 24-7 using the technology we already have. Heck, we could have put solar satellites up decades ago.

The problem still remains that solar energy is very diffuse, and you need a big collecting area.

The state of California alone uses about 22GW of power. According to Wikipedia, at the end of 2016, California had a total installed solar capacity of 18,919.8 MW - not far off the amount needed. Yet this capacity generated only about 10% of the power used in California - a woeful capacity factor, that could be massively boosted by putting all that capacity into orbit, where it sees the sun 24x7x365.

Sounds great. But. That amount of generation requires a collecting area of about 580 square km. The ISS P6 solar array assembly masses about 16.3 metric tonnes; its collecting area is about 400 square metres, and it cost in the order of $450 million to put into Low Earth Orbit (That's just the launch cost, not the cost of building the thing).

There are a million square metres in a square kilometre; To supply solar power to California alone from Low Earth Orbit using arrays similar to those on the ISS would require (conservatively) $652,500 Trillion in launch costs alone, just to get the equipment up there - then you have all the cost of assembling and configuring the thing, and the cost of your ground collection station(s), and you still need to allow for some losses in transmission back to the ground, ongoing maintenance and repair, etc, etc, ...

Compare that with about $80 billion for the same amount (20GW) of high capacity factor nuclear power plants, and you can see the problem here.

Unless you can manufacture your collectors with materials sourced from outside the Earth's gravity well (eg asteroid mining, or from the Moon); Or you can MASSIVELY reduce the cost of getting to orbit (eg build a space elevator), this is just too expensive to even consider. Even if space-based solar is 100x as effective per sq metre as ground based solar, it is still unimaginably expensive. Like, a million years of the current US Defence budget expensive.

 

[lpetrich]

Nuclear Power Won’t Survive Without A Government Handout | FiveThirtyEight -- at least in the United States

There are 99 nuclear reactors producing electricity in the United States today. Collectively, they’re responsible for producing about 20 percent of the electricity we use each year. But those reactors are, to put it delicately, of a certain age. The average age of a nuclear power plant in this country is 38 years old (compared with 24 years old for a natural gas power plant). Some are shutting down. New ones aren’t being built. And the ones still operational can’t compete with other sources of power on price. Just last week, several outlets reported on a leaked memo detailing a proposed Trump administration plan directing electric utilities to buy more from nuclear generators and coal plants in an effort to prop up the two struggling industries. The proposal is likely to butt up against political and legal opposition, even from within the electrical industry, in part because it would involve invoking Cold War-era emergency powers that constitute an unprecedented level of federal intervention in electricity markets. But without some type of public assistance, the nuclear industry is likely headed toward oblivion.

Defenders of nuclear energy might say that what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, that if renewable sources can be subsidized, then so can nuclear energy.

Subsidies are good for building new industries, but they are not so good for mature ones. The phasing out of renewable-energy subsidies may not be good for developing it, but it is good politics, and it may force defenders of fossil-fuel and nuclear-energy subsidies to explain why those are worth subsidizing.

 

[lpetrich]

New US Solar Record — 2.155 Cents Per kWh! (with Escalator for Inflation) | CleanTechnica

We have seen solar power in the Middle East come into the low 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) range. We have seen it under 2 cents per kWh in Mexico. Misguided, casual observers claimed these prices only occurred due to heavily exploited labor, but now we have also seen 2.155 cents per kWh in the United States (h/t RenewEconomy). This contract was one of six contracts that Nevada Power recently signed. All 6 contracts came in under 3 cents per kWh.

...
At CleanTechnica, we have published numerous stories projecting that the price of solar would continue to decline despite already low prices. Nevertheless, I still feel the need for someone to convince me that I am not dreaming every time a solar price record is obliterated. (Notably, not even 5 years ago, 2–3¢/kWh solar was projected for 2050.)

The 6 solar farms range from 50 megawatts to 300 megawatts. Combined, they will total 1,001 megawatts. Just a reminder for any newer readers of CleanTechnica and such energy stories — 1,000 megawatts is equal to 1 gigawatt. Roughly speaking, 1 gigawatt of solar panels cover about 1 square kilometer.

...
Three of the solar farms will also include battery storage totaling 100 megawatts (MW) of power capacity and 400 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy storage.

Only 1/10 of the solar capacity, and only for 4 hours. But it may be good for quick fluctuations, and it may make "peakers" and "spinning reserve" less necessary.

 

[bilby]

Nuclear Power Won’t Survive Without A Government Handout | FiveThirtyEight -- at least in the United States

There are 99 nuclear reactors producing electricity in the United States today. Collectively, they’re responsible for producing about 20 percent of the electricity we use each year. But those reactors are, to put it delicately, of a certain age. The average age of a nuclear power plant in this country is 38 years old (compared with 24 years old for a natural gas power plant). Some are shutting down. New ones aren’t being built. And the ones still operational can’t compete with other sources of power on price. Just last week, several outlets reported on a leaked memo detailing a proposed Trump administration plan directing electric utilities to buy more from nuclear generators and coal plants in an effort to prop up the two struggling industries. The proposal is likely to butt up against political and legal opposition, even from within the electrical industry, in part because it would involve invoking Cold War-era emergency powers that constitute an unprecedented level of federal intervention in electricity markets. But without some type of public assistance, the nuclear industry is likely headed toward oblivion.

Defenders of nuclear energy might say that what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, that if renewable sources can be subsidized, then so can nuclear energy.

Subsidies are good for building new industries, but they are not so good for mature ones. The phasing out of renewable-energy subsidies may not be good for developing it, but it is good politics, and it may force defenders of fossil-fuel and nuclear-energy subsidies to explain why those are worth subsidizing.

The nuclear industry is newer than either solar or wind power. The first solar-voltaic cell was invented in 1883 (http://energyinformative.org/the-history-of-solar-energy-timeline/); The first wind turbine used to generate electricity was built in 1887 (https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2014/11/history-of-wind-turbines.html).

The first use of nuclear power to make electricity was in 1948 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-10_Graphite_Reactor).

So if subsidies should be reserved for new technologies, nuclear is more deserving of them than either solar or wind power. That it's opponents rely on factually incorrect information to argue against it surprises me not at all, but it is disappointing to see these untruths repeated uncritically so often, and by people who really should know better.

And nuclear power doesn't need a subsidy. It just needs not to have to pay VAST sums for needless regulatory compliance. Or, if you think that spending trillions of dollars per life saved is a good idea, the government could apply a similarly harsh regulatory environment to all power generation industries, proportional to the harm they do to people and the environment, and nuclear would suddenly be cheapest of all. By far.

Saying 'You must pay us millions every year for a licence to operate, and millions more to employ people to write reports about every little detail of what you do', and then saying 'well it seems that you are no longer profitable without a subsidy, so we clearly can't afford you', is incredibly dishonest (and typical of the anti-nuclear propaganda machine).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Nuclear Power Won’t Survive Without A Government Handout | FiveThirtyEight -- at least in the United States

There are 99 nuclear reactors producing electricity in the United States today. Collectively, they’re responsible for producing about 20 percent of the electricity we use each year. But those reactors are, to put it delicately, of a certain age. The average age of a nuclear power plant in this country is 38 years old (compared with 24 years old for a natural gas power plant). Some are shutting down. New ones aren’t being built. And the ones still operational can’t compete with other sources of power on price. Just last week, several outlets reported on a leaked memo detailing a proposed Trump administration plan directing electric utilities to buy more from nuclear generators and coal plants in an effort to prop up the two struggling industries. The proposal is likely to butt up against political and legal opposition, even from within the electrical industry, in part because it would involve invoking Cold War-era emergency powers that constitute an unprecedented level of federal intervention in electricity markets. But without some type of public assistance, the nuclear industry is likely headed toward oblivion.

Defenders of nuclear energy might say that what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, that if renewable sources can be subsidized, then so can nuclear energy.

Subsidies are good for building new industries, but they are not so good for mature ones. The phasing out of renewable-energy subsidies may not be good for developing it, but it is good politics, and it may force defenders of fossil-fuel and nuclear-energy subsidies to explain why those are worth subsidizing.

The nuclear industry is newer than either solar or wind power. The first solar-voltaic cell was invented in 1883 (http://energyinformative.org/the-history-of-solar-energy-timeline/); The first wind turbine used to generate electricity was built in 1887 (https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2014/11/history-of-wind-turbines.html).

The first use of nuclear power to make electricity was in 1948 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-10_Graphite_Reactor).

So if subsidies should be reserved for new technologies, nuclear is more deserving of them than either solar or wind power. That it's opponents rely on factually incorrect information to argue against it surprises me not at all, but it is disappointing to see these untruths repeated uncritically so often, and by people who really should know better.

And nuclear power doesn't need a subsidy. It just needs not to have to pay VAST sums for needless regulatory compliance. Or, if you think that spending trillions of dollars per life saved is a good idea, the government could apply a similarly harsh regulatory environment to all power generation industries, proportional to the harm they do to people and the environment, and nuclear would suddenly be cheapest of all. By far.

Saying 'You must pay us millions every year for a licence to operate, and millions more to employ people to write reports about every little detail of what you do', and then saying 'well it seems that you are no longer profitable without a subsidy, so we clearly can't afford you', is incredibly dishonest (and typical of the anti-nuclear propaganda machine).

Everything has regulations. To squeal it's those bad ol' regulations causing nuclear's problems is nonsense. Our nuclear plants are aging and getting expensive to keep going and operate. Wind and gas are cheaper and easier. Costs of handling nuclear waste are not cheap. (Nor massive amounts of coal ash for that matter.) And gas and solar and wind do not have the tail end costs of decommissioning radioactive nuclear plants. Sorry, but the wind is going out of nuclear's sails.

Meanwhile, Bill Gates, and several other billionaires are creating a long term project for creating technology to store renewable energy, a key piece of the renewable puzzle. As Gates explains it, sometimes big energy companies do not want to support long term projects without an immediate pay off. And in our current political clime, government isn't willing to take on the task. So this effort which will not expect a payoff for 20 years will fill that gap.

Progress is marching on. Sorry about that.

 

[lpetrich]

 History of wind power -- a nice article. Wind energy has been utilized for centuries, though always in direct mechanical fashion until the last century. It gradually went into eclipse over the late 19th cy. and early 20th cy. as fossil fuels proved more energy-dense and otherwise more convenient. The modern era of wind turbines started in the late 1970's and early 1980's with experimental models in the US and Denmark. So modern wind turbines are younger than nuclear reactors by some 30 years.

 Timeline of solar cells -- the first practical ones were developed in the 1950's, so they are not much younger than nuclear reactors.

 

[bilby]

The nuclear industry is newer than either solar or wind power. The first solar-voltaic cell was invented in 1883 (http://energyinformative.org/the-history-of-solar-energy-timeline/); The first wind turbine used to generate electricity was built in 1887 (https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2014/11/history-of-wind-turbines.html).

The first use of nuclear power to make electricity was in 1948 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-10_Graphite_Reactor).

So if subsidies should be reserved for new technologies, nuclear is more deserving of them than either solar or wind power. That it's opponents rely on factually incorrect information to argue against it surprises me not at all, but it is disappointing to see these untruths repeated uncritically so often, and by people who really should know better.

And nuclear power doesn't need a subsidy. It just needs not to have to pay VAST sums for needless regulatory compliance. Or, if you think that spending trillions of dollars per life saved is a good idea, the government could apply a similarly harsh regulatory environment to all power generation industries, proportional to the harm they do to people and the environment, and nuclear would suddenly be cheapest of all. By far.

Saying 'You must pay us millions every year for a licence to operate, and millions more to employ people to write reports about every little detail of what you do', and then saying 'well it seems that you are no longer profitable without a subsidy, so we clearly can't afford you', is incredibly dishonest (and typical of the anti-nuclear propaganda machine).

Everything has regulations.

Indeed.

To squeal it's those bad ol' regulations causing nuclear's problems is nonsense.

No, it's not. When something is risky, it needs close regulation to mitigate the risk. When something is harming the environment through externalities, it needs regulations to prevent that. NEITHER is applicable to nuclear power, but the 'alternatives' including both fossil fuels and renewables, are given a pass and not subjected to the insane level of regulation applied to nuclear power. That is stupid, and leads to inappropriate outcomes, including harm to both people and the environment.

Between 1980 and 1992, the regulatory costs of running a nuclear power plant in the US almost doubled. Why? Where are the injuries, deaths, or pollution incidents in the US nuclear power industry before that time, that this increase was required to mitigate or prevent? That increase achieved nothing, other than to make it possible for idiots to declare nuclear power to be too expensive.

Our nuclear plants are aging and getting expensive to keep going and operate.

Not really. Nuclear plants cost very little to operate - other than regulatory fees and the employment of needless staff to fill forms for the government.

Wind and gas are cheaper and easier.

On a level playing field, they are not cheaper (even before we add the MASSIVE externality of storage and grid stability services that they cause a need for, but do not have to fund).

Costs of handling nuclear waste are not cheap. (Nor massive amounts of coal ash for that matter.)

Bullcrap. Coal ash is just dumped into our environment and forgotten. Just like broken and out of date solar panels and the tailings from mining the rare minerals used in the manufacture of both solar and wind power facilities. ONLY nuclear power, amongst all industries on Earth, actually takes responsibility to ensure that its waste does no harm to people or the environment. And to date they have been 100% successful in achieving that objective. Not one person has ever been injured by spent fuel from the nuclear industry. The Solar, Wind, and fossil fuel industries cannot honestly make that claim even if we were to generously ignore everything prior to the start of this year.

And gas and solar and wind do not have the tail end costs of decommissioning radioactive nuclear plants. Sorry, but the wind is going out of nuclear's sails.

LOL - only because morons have been duped into taking it out.

Meanwhile, Bill Gates, and several other billionaires are creating a long term project for creating technology to store renewable energy, a key piece of the renewable puzzle.

A piece we don't have, need immediately, and may never get at a price we can afford. Tell me again how nuclear is too expensive, when compared to the unknown but clearly not small cost of energy storage?

As Gates explains it, sometimes big energy companies do not want to support long term projects without an immediate pay off. And in our current political clime, government isn't willing to take on the task. So this effort which will not expect a payoff for 20 years will fill that gap.

Progress is marching on. Sorry about that.

You should be apologizing for blocking progress with your quasi-religious nonsense. You and people like you are responsible for millions of deaths, and for about 50% of the CO₂ pollution in our atmosphere. I would say "I hope you are proud of yourselves", but the sad fact is, you genuinely fucking ARE. Your sanctimonious and pious commitment to being factually wrong in ways that are directly and avoidably harmful to everybody reminds me of evangelical Christians. You are so convinced that you are right that you won't even consider investigating the possibility that the facts do not support your beliefs.

 

[bilby]

 History of wind power -- a nice article. Wind energy has been utilized for centuries, though always in direct mechanical fashion until the last century. It gradually went into eclipse over the late 19th cy. and early 20th cy. as fossil fuels proved more energy-dense and otherwise more convenient. The modern era of wind turbines started in the late 1970's and early 1980's with experimental models in the US and Denmark. So modern wind turbines are younger than nuclear reactors by some 30 years.

And yet electricity was generated from wind power in the 19th century.

 Timeline of solar cells -- the first practical ones were developed in the 1950's, so they are not much younger than nuclear reactors.

And yet electricity was generated from solar voltaic power in the 19th century.

The first nuclear power reactors, like the first electricity generating wind turbines and EV cells, look very different from their modern counterparts.

Nuclear power designs are just as new (if not newer) and just as deserving of subsidy for R&D, if not more so, as wind or solar power. The argument that Nuclear is a mature technology and that Wind and Solar are not, and that therefore subsidy is appropriate for renewables but not nuclear, depends upon one choosing a different set of starting rules when considering the different modes of power generation - ie, it is a dishonest argument. If we are discussing the first use of a technology to make electricity, Nuclear is the newest.

If, instead, we are discussing the latest developments in each technology, then all are roughly equal - all are making advances that require R&D funding, and that have the potential to radically alter their respective industries.

To argue that nuclear is an older technology requires that you do not consider all options equally.

Honest people who want the best outcomes for the human race and our environment should not repeat such dishonest arguments, as doing so is counterproductive.