The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...wer-energy-climate-decarbonization-renewables

Scientists assessed the options for growing nuclear power. They are grim.
That’s profoundly concerning for climate change.



Is nuclear power going to help the United States decarbonize its energy supply and fight climate change?
Probably not.
That is the conclusion of a remarkable new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in early July — remarkable because it is not written by opponents of nuclear power, as one might expect given the conclusion. The authors are in fact extremely supportive of nuclear and view its loss as a matter of “profound concern”:

They are right to do so.

The anti-science loons are going to fuck our entire ecosystem for purely ideological stupidity.

Did you carefully read the article? It is not "the loons" that are the problem. The magic beans of nuclear power won't be an economically feasible short term solution.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Did you carefully read the article? It is not "the loons" that are the problem. The magic beans of nuclear power won't be an economically feasible short term solution.

It's not magic beans, and China will keep moving forward regardless of whether the US does so. On that note:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-AP1000-unit-begins-generating-power-0207184.html
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Chinas-Sanmen-2-cleared-for-fuel-loading-10071802.html
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Chinas-Taishan-1-reactor-connected-to-grid-29061801.html
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/First_EPR_nuclear_reactor_goes_on_stream_in_China_999.html

 

[bilby]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...wer-energy-climate-decarbonization-renewables

Scientists assessed the options for growing nuclear power. They are grim.
That’s profoundly concerning for climate change.



Is nuclear power going to help the United States decarbonize its energy supply and fight climate change?
Probably not.
That is the conclusion of a remarkable new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in early July — remarkable because it is not written by opponents of nuclear power, as one might expect given the conclusion. The authors are in fact extremely supportive of nuclear and view its loss as a matter of “profound concern”:

They are right to do so.

The anti-science loons are going to fuck our entire ecosystem for purely ideological stupidity.

Did you carefully read the article? It is not "the loons" that are the problem. The magic beans of nuclear power won't be an economically feasible short term solution.

Because the loons insist on ridiculous and unnecessary things that exist only to make the technology more expensive, so that they can get rid of it.

Most of the cost of operating a reactor in the USA is compliance with regulations. In the rest of the world, nuclear power is not too expensive; So why is it so costly in the USA? Do you imagine that American uranium is different from that found in the rest of the world?

The VAST majority of the underlying cost of a nuclear power plant is its construction. Operating costs are minuscule - the fuel is ridiculously cheap per MWh of power generated. To make it economically sensible to shut down a nuclear power plant before the end of its working life requires HUGE market distortions. And the anti-nuclear lobby are very good at generating those.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

USA ain't China.

From the article:
...
[h=3]The existing nuclear fleet is shrinking[/h] Existing nuclear plants in the US are having a rough time, getting undercut on energy markets by cheaper natural gas and renewables. A wave of retirements is underway that is probably going to take around 10 GW of nuclear capacity offline.
A handful of states have taken measures to keep nuclear plants open (see this post), but doing so requires “expensive refurbishment and careful regulatory consideration,” the authors write, and will only “slow, not reverse, the losses.”


...
So then what about new plants?
[h=3]Existing nuclear plant technology is a dead end[/h] Existing nuclear plants are light-water reactors (LWRs), which were always intended to be the first generation of nuclear plants. But subsequent generations have not materialized, and we’re still mostly dealing with LWRs.


Attempts to build new LWRs in the US have been a fiasco, ending up canceled (as in the beleaguered Summer plant in South Carolina, which was 40 percent complete) or endlessly delayed and over-budget (as in the new Vogtle reactors in Georgia).
The researchers are blunt about the prospects for new plants based on existing technology:
There is no reason to believe that any utility in the United States will build a new large reactor in the foreseeable future. These reactors have proven unaffordable and economically uncompetitive.

 

[bilby]

USA ain't China.

From the article:
...
[h=3]The existing nuclear fleet is shrinking[/h] Existing nuclear plants in the US are having a rough time, getting undercut on energy markets by cheaper natural gas and renewables. A wave of retirements is underway that is probably going to take around 10 GW of nuclear capacity offline.
A handful of states have taken measures to keep nuclear plants open (see this post), but doing so requires “expensive refurbishment and careful regulatory consideration,” the authors write, and will only “slow, not reverse, the losses.”


...
So then what about new plants?
[h=3]Existing nuclear plant technology is a dead end[/h] Existing nuclear plants are light-water reactors (LWRs), which were always intended to be the first generation of nuclear plants. But subsequent generations have not materialized, and we’re still mostly dealing with LWRs.


Attempts to build new LWRs in the US have been a fiasco, ending up canceled (as in the beleaguered Summer plant in South Carolina, which was 40 percent complete) or endlessly delayed and over-budget (as in the new Vogtle reactors in Georgia).
The researchers are blunt about the prospects for new plants based on existing technology:
There is no reason to believe that any utility in the United States will build a new large reactor in the foreseeable future. These reactors have proven unaffordable and economically uncompetitive.

And by 'cheaper natural gas and renewables', we of course mean 'renewables that get MASSIVE subsidies, and guaranteed sale prices for their power that vastly exceed the (sometimes negative) wholesale price of electricity at the time of generation (so they are actually more expensive, but grid operators cannot refuse to buy them, making then appear very profitable); and natural gas that is cheaper due to fracking, and due to not having to pay the substantial externalized cost of climate change'

Of course they are cheaper. The entire market has been systematically distorted to make them cheaper - by people who want nuclear power to go away.

I am calling for these market distortions to be removed - at which point we will be able to see what is actually 'cheaper'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

USA ain't China.

Sure, but improvements in nuclear technology will continue; new, more advanced reactors will be built, etc., regardless of whether it happens in the US. Give it enough time, though, and there is a question of how much of a nuclear technology gap in favor of China will the US government be comfortable with before they decide it's time to change regulatory conditions so that the local nuclear industry can develop again.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

USA ain't China.

From the article:
...
The existing nuclear fleet is shrinking

Existing nuclear plants in the US are having a rough time, getting undercut on energy markets by cheaper natural gas and renewables. A wave of retirements is underway that is probably going to take around 10 GW of nuclear capacity offline.
A handful of states have taken measures to keep nuclear plants open (see this post), but doing so requires “expensive refurbishment and careful regulatory consideration,” the authors write, and will only “slow, not reverse, the losses.”


...
So then what about new plants?
Existing nuclear plant technology is a dead end

Existing nuclear plants are light-water reactors (LWRs), which were always intended to be the first generation of nuclear plants. But subsequent generations have not materialized, and we’re still mostly dealing with LWRs.


Attempts to build new LWRs in the US have been a fiasco, ending up canceled (as in the beleaguered Summer plant in South Carolina, which was 40 percent complete) or endlessly delayed and over-budget (as in the new Vogtle reactors in Georgia).
The researchers are blunt about the prospects for new plants based on existing technology:
There is no reason to believe that any utility in the United States will build a new large reactor in the foreseeable future. These reactors have proven unaffordable and economically uncompetitive.

And by 'cheaper natural gas and renewables', we of course mean 'renewables that get MASSIVE subsidies, and guaranteed sale prices for their power that vastly exceed the (sometimes negative) wholesale price of electricity at the time of generation (so they are actually more expensive, but grid operators cannot refuse to buy them, making then appear very profitable); and natural gas that is cheaper due to fracking, and due to not having to pay the substantial externalized cost of climate change'

Of course they are cheaper. The entire market has been systematically distorted to make them cheaper - by people who want nuclear power to go away.

I am calling for these market distortions to be removed - at which point we will be able to see what is actually 'cheaper'.

Here in Texas, natural gas is plentiful and cheap and does not depend on massive subsidies. Our large offshore drilling projects do.

And as a matter of fact, nuclear has also had large subsidies. And nuclear in some states receives large subsidies to stay in business.

 

[bilby]

USA ain't China.

From the article:
...
The existing nuclear fleet is shrinking

Existing nuclear plants in the US are having a rough time, getting undercut on energy markets by cheaper natural gas and renewables. A wave of retirements is underway that is probably going to take around 10 GW of nuclear capacity offline.
A handful of states have taken measures to keep nuclear plants open (see this post), but doing so requires “expensive refurbishment and careful regulatory consideration,” the authors write, and will only “slow, not reverse, the losses.”


...
So then what about new plants?
Existing nuclear plant technology is a dead end

Existing nuclear plants are light-water reactors (LWRs), which were always intended to be the first generation of nuclear plants. But subsequent generations have not materialized, and we’re still mostly dealing with LWRs.


Attempts to build new LWRs in the US have been a fiasco, ending up canceled (as in the beleaguered Summer plant in South Carolina, which was 40 percent complete) or endlessly delayed and over-budget (as in the new Vogtle reactors in Georgia).
The researchers are blunt about the prospects for new plants based on existing technology:
There is no reason to believe that any utility in the United States will build a new large reactor in the foreseeable future. These reactors have proven unaffordable and economically uncompetitive.

And by 'cheaper natural gas and renewables', we of course mean 'renewables that get MASSIVE subsidies, and guaranteed sale prices for their power that vastly exceed the (sometimes negative) wholesale price of electricity at the time of generation (so they are actually more expensive, but grid operators cannot refuse to buy them, making then appear very profitable); and natural gas that is cheaper due to fracking, and due to not having to pay the substantial externalized cost of climate change'

Of course they are cheaper. The entire market has been systematically distorted to make them cheaper - by people who want nuclear power to go away.

I am calling for these market distortions to be removed - at which point we will be able to see what is actually 'cheaper'.

Here in Texas, natural gas is plentiful and cheap and does not depend on massive subsidies. Our large offshore drilling projects do.

And as a matter of fact, nuclear has also had large subsidies. And nuclear in some states receives large subsidies to stay in business.

Natural gas can be as cheap as you like, but burning it will still cause climate change. That's not acceptable. We need to stop burning gas (and oil and coal) - no matter how cheap they appear, their hidden environmental costs are too high.

Intermittent renewables do not allow us to stop burning gas. In many cases, they actually cause more gas to be burned.

Nuclear power SHOULD receive large subsidies. Because unlike any other extant technology, it has a real, significant and effective impact on carbon dioxide emissions. The subsidies provided to the nuclear industry in the USA are more than offset by the needlessly high regulatory costs, and do not qualify as 'large' in my book.

On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

1. Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
2. Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
3. Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
4. Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

(Source)

When the fossil fuel industry is getting almost three times as much subsidy as the only one of those four that has produced demonstrable and significant reductions in Carbon Dioxide emissions, you can tell that there is something seriously wrong with the priorities.

Note also that the smallest fraction of the subsidies goes to Nuclear. If the Nuclear subsidy qualifies as 'large', then the subsidies given to its competitors are fucking immense.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Sorry, this is the USA and the GOP runs everything, Senate, House of Representatives and presidency. They don't believe in climate change and won't do shit about it. We are lucky that for many central states, wind power is easy and cheap and hence, is being implemented widely. The bastards are not going to halt fracking, gas, or coal.

To make nuclear a viable alternative, the US needed years ago to get moving on that, but did not. Bush and the GOP Congress for example, wasted 8 years. And the GOP controlled Congress sat on it's spotty behind all through the Obama years. Here in the USA, this is where we are at.

Screwed. That is the sad reality. We can opine all we want how nuclear, properly done, would solve a lot of problems. But at this point, IF we moved to that option full throttle, it would take 25 years to see actual results, new plants in operation, and there is no sign of any such project occurring any time soon. Not as long as the GOP rules, sitting on its ignorant right winged ass, picking it's nose.

One of the few bright spots I can see is that here in Texas, the state, run by the GOP has actually encouraged alternative energy with some good results as far as wind is concerned. Unlike some states, Wyoming for example, where the GOP, in thrall to elements like the Koch brothers, actively works against wind and alternative energy sources. The report I linked to, points out that at this point, nuclear is in trouble in the USA. This is a political reality caused by utter lack of foresight and action in the US by the nuclear industry, and government neglect. That is the reality and it is no use moaning how wonderful nuclear could be, as long as these conditions are in place. After 50 years of nuclear, that industry is still unable to build a nuclear plant without seriously fucking it up, as they have done recently with several plants.

At least in Texas, as far as wind is concerned, the GOP and industry managed not to fuck that up, and so 17% of our energy is now created by wind, and solar is now beginning to to be used. It is the best we can hope for in the near future, unless Satan himself comes down to Earth to take Republican politicians home en masse.

 

[lpetrich]

Renewable energy is catching up to natural gas much faster than anyone thought - Vox

In its role as a bridge, natural gas seems to have a comfortable future. First, it will replace coal and nuclear “baseload” plants, and then, as renewables grow to supply the bulk of power, it will provide flexibility, filling in the gaps where variable renewables (wind and solar) fall short. By playing these multiple roles, natural gas will long outlive coal and prove useful well into the latter half of the 21st century. It will enjoy a long, slow exit.

Or so it seemed.

Around 2015, though, just five years into gas’s rise to power, complications for this narrative began to appear. First, wind and solar costs fell so far, so fast that they are now undercutting the cost of new gas in a growing number of regions. And then batteries — which can “firm up” variable renewables, diminishing the need for natural gas’s flexibility — also started getting cheap faster than anyone expected. It happened so fast that, in certain limited circumstances, solar+storage or wind+storage is already cheaper than new natural gas plants and able to play all the same roles (and more).

The cost of natural gas power is tethered to the commodity price of natural gas, which is inherently volatile. The price of controllable, storable renewable energy is tethered only to technology costs, which are going down, down, down. Recent forecasts suggest that it may be cheaper to build new renewables+storage than to continue operating existing natural gas plants by 2035.

Natural Gas Prices - Historical Chart | MacroTrends Prices at the  Henry Hub:

The Henry Hub is a distribution hub on the natural gas pipeline system in Erath, Louisiana, owned by Sabine Pipe Line LLC, a subsidiary of EnLink Midstream Partners LP who purchased the asset from Chevron Corporation in 2014.[1] Due to its importance, it lends its name to the pricing point for natural gas futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the OTC swaps traded on Intercontinental Exchange (ICE).

Notice how the price jumps around quite a lot.

There may be an additional reason that many utilities are adopting renewable energy: freedom from fuel-price instability. Wind and solar electricity generation have the problem of being intermittent, but this intermittency is usually very predictable, at least on average. Furthermore, these averages are very stable over the years.

 

[steve_bank]

According to a Solar Power text I used to have at one point there was a growing solar heating industry. Hot water without coal or wood. Cheap natural gas killed it off.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here in Texas, natural gas is plentiful and cheap and does not depend on massive subsidies. Our large offshore drilling projects do.

And as a matter of fact, nuclear has also had large subsidies. And nuclear in some states receives large subsidies to stay in business.

Natural gas can be as cheap as you like, but burning it will still cause climate change. That's not acceptable. We need to stop burning gas (and oil and coal) - no matter how cheap they appear, their hidden environmental costs are too high.

Intermittent renewables do not allow us to stop burning gas. In many cases, they actually cause more gas to be burned.

Nuclear power SHOULD receive large subsidies. Because unlike any other extant technology, it has a real, significant and effective impact on carbon dioxide emissions. The subsidies provided to the nuclear industry in the USA are more than offset by the needlessly high regulatory costs, and do not qualify as 'large' in my book.

On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

1. Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
2. Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
3. Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
4. Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

(Source)

When the fossil fuel industry is getting almost three times as much subsidy as the only one of those four that has produced demonstrable and significant reductions in Carbon Dioxide emissions, you can tell that there is something seriously wrong with the priorities.

Note also that the smallest fraction of the subsidies goes to Nuclear. If the Nuclear subsidy qualifies as 'large', then the subsidies given to its competitors are fucking immense.

There is something wrong there, I presuming it is "tax subsidy"... as the chart shows no subsidy for nuclear prior to 2000, which is unbelievable. If memory serves, nuclear generally didn't have a ton of subsidy... other than a lot of money for research. This shows a decent timeline. In the US, there are a number of environmentalists that do see an issue with natural gas pushing nuclear to the side. They do realize that nuclear emits almost nothing compared to natural gas.

 

[bilby]

Natural gas can be as cheap as you like, but burning it will still cause climate change. That's not acceptable. We need to stop burning gas (and oil and coal) - no matter how cheap they appear, their hidden environmental costs are too high.

Intermittent renewables do not allow us to stop burning gas. In many cases, they actually cause more gas to be burned.

Nuclear power SHOULD receive large subsidies. Because unlike any other extant technology, it has a real, significant and effective impact on carbon dioxide emissions. The subsidies provided to the nuclear industry in the USA are more than offset by the needlessly high regulatory costs, and do not qualify as 'large' in my book.

(Source)

When the fossil fuel industry is getting almost three times as much subsidy as the only one of those four that has produced demonstrable and significant reductions in Carbon Dioxide emissions, you can tell that there is something seriously wrong with the priorities.

Note also that the smallest fraction of the subsidies goes to Nuclear. If the Nuclear subsidy qualifies as 'large', then the subsidies given to its competitors are fucking immense.

There is something wrong there, I presuming it is "tax subsidy"... as the chart shows no subsidy for nuclear prior to 2000, which is unbelievable. If memory serves, nuclear generally didn't have a ton of subsidy... other than a lot of money for research. This shows a decent timeline. In the US, there are a number of environmentalists that do see an issue with natural gas pushing nuclear to the side. They do realize that nuclear emits almost nothing compared to natural gas.

Someone who has no problem with Natural Gas pushing Nuclear aside is not an environmentalist.

Unless the definition of 'environmentalist' is 'person who thinks they are helping the environment while actively working to damage it'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to a Solar Power text I used to have at one point there was a growing solar heating industry. Hot water without coal or wood. Cheap natural gas killed it off.

I disagree. Back in the 80s we had a cheap solar hot water system. It was very simple--collector on the roof, a pump, sensors to decide if the pump should run and a loop from the water heater to the collector. They were being sold as a DIY system--you attended a two-day class where you built (and learned the skills needed) your own collectors (mostly from off-the-shelf parts) and learned how to do your own installation. (Although we, like many, hired the physical aspect of the installation--we weren't comfortable with lifting the weight onto the roof.)

Very simple, but with one big downside: Freezing temperatures. The system handled it by having a second sensor on the collector that would trigger the pump at 36F--sacrifice a bit of your hot water to keep it from freezing. That was an acceptable loss in the climate there but it would be unacceptable in most places. (Although, many years later it proved a problem. The pump died, I no longer lived in town to deal with it, they were slow in dealing with it, a cold night, the pipe burst.)

In colder (which means most of the United States) climates things get much more complex. You can't leave water in them on cold nights. That means you have to use a two-stage system (which substantially reduces their efficiency) and the second stage is more complex. You either use a system with a liquid that won't freeze--but this introduces the problem of what happens if you get a leak in the heat exchanger--the liquid must be non-toxic and there aren't many candidates, or you do it like a swimming pool system--the loop to the collectors is not pressurized, it only has water in it when the pumps are running. Again, complications. Two stage systems simply do not have the economics of the simple systems.

Also, at the time we did this there was a bit of a safety issue. Mixer valves that ensured the water wasn't too hot weren't a consumer product at the time (whether they existed industrially or not I do not know) and the tank could get very hot, indeed. On a hot summer day the system would shut down when the collectors boiled--which meant the tank was 15 degrees below boiling. We knew the hot could be scalding and to take care, had my grandfather still been alive then it would have been completely unacceptable.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone who has no problem with Natural Gas pushing Nuclear aside is not an environmentalist.

Unless the definition of 'environmentalist' is 'person who thinks they are helping the environment while actively working to damage it'.

Most so-called environmentalists are actually opposed to anything big. Nuke plants are big.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Natural gas can be as cheap as you like, but burning it will still cause climate change. That's not acceptable. We need to stop burning gas (and oil and coal) - no matter how cheap they appear, their hidden environmental costs are too high.

Intermittent renewables do not allow us to stop burning gas. In many cases, they actually cause more gas to be burned.

Nuclear power SHOULD receive large subsidies. Because unlike any other extant technology, it has a real, significant and effective impact on carbon dioxide emissions. The subsidies provided to the nuclear industry in the USA are more than offset by the needlessly high regulatory costs, and do not qualify as 'large' in my book.

(Source)

When the fossil fuel industry is getting almost three times as much subsidy as the only one of those four that has produced demonstrable and significant reductions in Carbon Dioxide emissions, you can tell that there is something seriously wrong with the priorities.

Note also that the smallest fraction of the subsidies goes to Nuclear. If the Nuclear subsidy qualifies as 'large', then the subsidies given to its competitors are fucking immense.

There is something wrong there, I presuming it is "tax subsidy"... as the chart shows no subsidy for nuclear prior to 2000, which is unbelievable. If memory serves, nuclear generally didn't have a ton of subsidy... other than a lot of money for research. This shows a decent timeline. In the US, there are a number of environmentalists that do see an issue with natural gas pushing nuclear to the side. They do realize that nuclear emits almost nothing compared to natural gas.

Someone who has no problem with Natural Gas pushing Nuclear aside is not an environmentalist.

Unless the definition of 'environmentalist' is 'person who thinks they are helping the environment while actively working to damage it'.

It is not a matter of not being bothered by gas. It is a realization that being against use of natural gas is at this point in time, like being against the tides. I'd rather support solar and wind, which is going to do well in the future, but they will not take over immediately. Nuclear at this point is 20 - 25 years out from possibly seeing new designs created, and implemented and plants built. May it will happen, maybe not.

 

[bilby]

Someone who has no problem with Natural Gas pushing Nuclear aside is not an environmentalist.

Unless the definition of 'environmentalist' is 'person who thinks they are helping the environment while actively working to damage it'.

It is not a matter of not being bothered by gas. It is a realization that being against use of natural gas is at this point in time, like being against the tides. I'd rather support solar and wind, which is going to do well in the future, but they will not take over immediately. Nuclear at this point is 20 - 25 years out from possibly seeing new designs created, and implemented and plants built. May it will happen, maybe not.

Why do we need new designs? The plants being built around the world right now are perfectly good. Comes to that, the plants built a while ago have plenty of life left in them; they are being closed prematurely because stupid people are lobbying to replace them with gas (while fondly imagining that they are replacing them with wind and solar).

R&D is great, new designs are a good thing, and every field of industry benefits from well funded research and development. But the idea that we should do nothing for two decades because we will have better designs by then is insane - it could equally be applied to ANY technology, at ANY time, and as such is an argument that nothing should ever be done at all.

Oh, and as to the argument that nuclear power needs bigger subsidies than other generation technologies, lets take a look at the actual figures:

Summary of Federal Energy Incentives, 1950 – 2016 (Billions of 2015 Dollars):

[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td]Energy source[/td]
[td]Total subsidy[/td]
[td]of which R&D[/td]
[td]non-R&D subsidy[/td]
[td]Total EWh[/td]
[td]Non-R&D Subsidy per EWh[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Oil[/td]
[td]414[/td]
[td]9[/td]
[td]405[/td]
[td]573[/td]
[td]0.7[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Renewables[/td]
[td]158[/td]
[td]32[/td]
[td]126[/td]
[td]9[/td]
[td]14[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Natural Gas[/td]
[td]140[/td]
[td]8[/td]
[td]132[/td]
[td]381[/td]
[td]0.35[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Coal[/td]
[td]112[/td]
[td]43[/td]
[td]69[/td]
[td]315[/td]
[td]0.22[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Hydro[/td]
[td]105[/td]
[td]2[/td]
[td]103[/td]
[td]47[/td]
[td]2.2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Nuclear[/td]
[td]78[/td]
[td]85[/td]
[td]-7[/td]
[td]86[/td]
[td]-0.08[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Geothermal[/td]
[td]11[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[td]2[/td]
[td]2.5[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Energy Incentives data
Primary Energy by year data
Percentage of Energy by year and source data

For nuclear energy, federal disbursements are negative, meaning the industry pays more than it receives in disbursements as a result of the contributions the industry makes to the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund. As of 2016, the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund had accumulated a $27billion surplus. The entry shown [...] for disbursements to nuclear energy is shown as a negative value to reflect the industry’s overpayment compared to what has been disbursed on its behalf.

Another example of Federal disbursements is §1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act program, which offered renewable energy project developers cash payments in lieu of investment tax credits.

So, excluding subsidies for research, the Renewables sector in the US has received subsidies of approximately 14 billion dollars per Exawatt-hour of energy generated; Compared to the nuclear sector, which has PAID the government a net 80 million dollars per Exawatt-hour, due mostly to the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund, which has collected $27 billion more than it has spent. This money is earmarked to protect the public from nuclear waste (which has, to date, not hurt a single person); No similar requirement to pay for protections not actually implemented is imposed on other sources of power, despite all of them producing waste that (unlike nuclear waste) has caused actual injuries and fatalities.

Far from being 'heavily subsidized', the non-R&D nuclear subsidies from the Federal government are given with one hand, and taken away with the other.

 

[bilby]

Someone who has no problem with Natural Gas pushing Nuclear aside is not an environmentalist.

Unless the definition of 'environmentalist' is 'person who thinks they are helping the environment while actively working to damage it'.

Most so-called environmentalists are actually opposed to anything big. Nuke plants are big.

Nuke plants are minuscule compared to Solar and Wind farms.

Most anti-nuclear activists call themselves 'environmentalists', but are actually somewhere on the scale between NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).

They are too busy paving their road with good intentions to notice where it leads.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Nuclear at this point is 20 - 25 years out from possibly seeing new designs created, and implemented and plants built.

Apart from what bilby said, the fact is that new designs are coming on line this year. For example (but there are more):

a. Sanmen 1. First AP1000 ever (US design, third (or "3+") generation).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-AP1000-unit-begins-generating-power-0207184.html

b. Taishan 1. First EPR ever (French design, third generation).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Chinas-Taishan-1-reactor-connected-to-grid-29061801.html

c. Yangjiang 5. First ACPR1000 ever (Chinese third generation upgrades on an original second generation French design).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Yangjiang-5-enters-commercial-operation-1307184.html

Sure, they're in China, but they include an American new design and a French new design. Similar new reactors are being built (or almost completed) in other countries, even if these seem to be the first ones to be connected.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

While company X might have a design, it does not mean company Y does. Westinghouse is bankrupt, and it is hard to see who else can build lots of plants in the US. Nukes are not something simply you can bang out a design quickly. It is hard to see how any new plants can be designed, and checked for stupids errors quickly.

I worked for decades in a field involved with refinery design, We built models of proposed plants to catch the stupid errors that occurred. Catching a few good ones that cost a few hundred dollars to catch and saved a few million in the field paid for the model, Some as big as a basket ball court.

The Westinghouse failure where expensive prefabbed parts did not fit together because somebody screwed up basic dimensions is the sort of thing that should not happen. But did. So it is not like there has been a well engineered design with all the bugs worked out ready to go. And one hopes the basic engineering team did not make the same sort of errors the construction design team made.

At this point the only safe and realistic way is to start again. From scratch. And maybe they should go back to the old ways. Build a model first. The company I worked for for 35 years long ago did do nuclear plants. Stupid errors got caught quickly.

No company is going to spend billions on a plant until they are assured that this time, it won't be an expensive screw up. No matter who is supposed to design it and then build it. A lot of expensive CAD systems didn't do the job with Westinghouse.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

While company X might have a design, it does not mean company Y does. Westinghouse is bankrupt, and it is hard to see who else can build lots of plants in the US. Nukes are not something simply you can bang out a design quickly. It is hard to see how any new plants can be designed, and checked for stupids errors quickly.

I worked for decades in a field involved with refinery design, We built models of proposed plants to catch the stupid errors that occurred. Catching a few good ones that cost a few hundred dollars to catch and saved a few million in the field paid for the model, Some as big as a basket ball court.

The Westinghouse failure where expensive prefabbed parts did not fit together because somebody screwed up basic dimensions is the sort of thing that should not happen. But did. So it is not like there has been a well engineered design with all the bugs worked out ready to go. And one hopes the basic engineering team did not make the same sort of errors the construction design team made.

At this point the only safe and realistic way is to start again. From scratch. And maybe they should go back to the old ways. Build a model first. The company I worked for for 35 years long ago did do nuclear plants. Stupid errors got caught quickly.

No company is going to spend billions on a plant until they are assured that this time, it won't be an expensive screw up. No matter who is supposed to design it and then build it. A lot of expensive CAD systems didn't do the job with Westinghouse.

Even if Westinghouse is bankrupt, they have the AP1000 - the design is there, and the patents can be sold if necessary.
Sure, it wasn't ready to go from the get go, but it seems they have by now fixed it - the thing is actually up and running. Moreover, if there are some things that still need fixing, they're going to figure it out as the power station operates, and then they'll fix it. So, I disagree that the only safe and realistic way is to start from scratch. It would be a waste of money when there is a running power station, and more coming. On that note, fuel has already been loaded on the second AP1000, Haiyang 1.