Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you're saying that we should choose nuclear power because it might not be cheaper than many alternatives, but since the cheapest option would be to not use any electricity at all, cost should not be a factor?
The best way to improve the availibility of wind power is to build an interconnected grid over large distances, the wind always blow somewhere (I think on average they produce power 80% of the time, with a capacity factor slightly below 40%). Sure you'll have to pay for the overcapacity needed and the investments in the infrastructure, but it also creates a more robust system. Shouldn't this be possible along the coasts of the US, where the population density is rather high? Off-shore wind parks have even better numbers.
Without superconductors, it's not that easy. Seriously. Have heard of nitrogen cooled superconductors in short runs in some substations, but have never seen it. Conventional conductors has line losses due to reactance and resistance inherent in the cable. There's HVDC which I don't think has the reactance component but still has resistance. The whole point to bumping up transmission voltages so high is to drop the line amps and the corresponding line losses, and even then it's more limited that some think. I think the longest in the US is a HVDC line that's a few hundred miles in length. That sounds long, but the hot summer day I described when there was no surplus electricity to be had covered a region longer and wider than that. You can find lists of long AC transmission lines, but those are usually loop instead of radial feed, so it's not necessarily the distance from Point A to Point B. With HVDC, my understanding is that it is Pont A to Point B.
The single longest AC transmission line in Sweden is more than 600 miles long (1000 km). Yes that is from point A to point B. It only takes about us half the way from the producers in the north to the consumers in the south, it was built in 1952, so it is probably easier today. So, it both possible and needed to chain them together. Yes, you put in capacitor banks to balance away the reactive losses, but you also arrange the leads to minimize the losses.
We have a lot HVDC connections at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. I think Norway have a subsea one all the way to the Netherlands.
Nowadays, Sweden produce 20-25% through wind power and it hasn't created an unstable grid. There's no conflict in diversifying the producer part of the equation, on the days it is windy you save on fuel and coal and hydropower and you crank them up if there's no wind. Half the cost of coal and oil power is the fuel. Nuclear chugs along at the same pace all the time.
You know the old real estate mantra "Location, location, location?" Same thing holds for renewables. Wind doesn't work everywhere and it's harder to get it from where it does than to where it doesn't isn't as easy as some think. What you call "political will" I call a Procrustean bed where people who fit on it just fine wonder why everyone else is screaming.
Procrustean bed, a new word to me, I had to Google it Who has forced anyone to do anything? Is there something wrong with the business case for renewables? I'm not saying it is the best solution everywhere, but neither are gas, coal or nuclear powered solutions.
Who's forcing renewables? Those who demand decommissioning existing generation without sufficient reliable generation in place first. Say "nuclear" and they get their knickers in a twist. Say you need to build energy storage where they actually can replace existing generation, and they say all you need is to build more renewables. Point out the expense and they repeat "renewables are cheaper" and won't listen to anything different.
I did financial studies for utilities for 30 years. I apologize to some posters. Much of the below has been posted. Personally, I do NOT expect posters to search the threads. Feel free to skip and move on.
I agree that it is silly to decommission working generation, but the extra need for reliable generation has been mostly solved by others by installed overcapacity and integrated power grids. Still cheaper than coal, oil and gas.
Without access to hydropower nuclear is the best low CO2 option.
Hasn't this been shown to be true?
This is an empirical question, this should be able to be calculated.
I've got friends that can't be without power even for a short time (farmers, with milking robots) they have a generator that can be coupled to the PTO on their tractor. But they have never had to use it, after a storm in 2005 many consumer side cables was buried almost eliminating short time power outages. A diesel generator is a low investment cost for a house hold of you have somewhere to put it.
Diesel can go "bad" over time. Seriously. Diesel motors require surprising levels of maintenance. When we ran great big diesel generators the size of semi-trailers until natural gas peaking stations came online, we'd have to do maintenance fairly often based on hours of use. The same for standby generators. Propane is less energy dense than diesel, but doesn't go "bad" just sitting there. It burns cleaner and that leads to less maintenance. That's why it's popular for home standby generators here.
Number 6 is an irony. Energy use per customer has been decreasing with greater energy efficiency of appliances. and, to a lesser extent, greater energy use for lighting. But now we have another application for electricity that will increase overall use.
True, I forgot that diesel as a car fuel is uncommon in the US. There are petrol generators available, I guess?
