UK finding wind power unaffordable and unreliable

serendipity said:
Yes agreed but Labour are full of Greenies with little regard for logic or common sense.
Click to expand...

All across the West Conservative parties have betrayed their claimed beliefs, and have failed to fight the important battles.

So many people look towards power and find almost no one who fights for what they believe in, and they get lied to constantly.
 
Althea said:
No different than funding nuclear
Click to expand...

Like I said, nuclear would be funded and there'd be no shortage of bidders so long as government underwrites the loans. Corporations simply can't risk that kind of capital. But as the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georga shows, they can be built.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Like I said, nuclear would be funded and there'd be no shortage of bidders so long as government underwrites the loans. Corporations simply can't risk that kind of capital. But as the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georga shows, they can be built.
Click to expand...
The thread is about funding
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I stopped looking at "levelized costs" because they're a bullshit measure.

I look at the cost of the plant in terms of construction, the power produced annually, nameplate power production, the capacity factor, and the cost of operation from actual output. Nuclear plants absolutely demolish solar and wind in terms of that. When you start adding in storage capacity and the need for redundant systems, solar and wind are so cost ineffective as to be insanely stupid to build.
Click to expand...

I respect your knowledge on the topic, TA, but I wouldn't call it 100% BS. Maybe they lack accuracy. But the whole industry lacks transparency and accurate accounting.




"Few disagree that the nuclear power industry, both in Illinois and throughout the nation, is in worse shape than it was five or 10 years ago. Study after study has shown that nuclear plants are bringing in far less revenue than they did a decade ago, largely as a result of declining electricity prices.

Some three-quarters or more of the roughly 20 active nuclear plants in the Midwest and Northeast that sell electricity directly into power markets have either announced early retirements or are receiving financial credits to stave off early retirement, according to a review of public documents.

Yet there is controversy over just how poorly nuclear plants are faring, and if they are faring poorly enough to have no choice but to close down or receive subsidies.

Normally, a simple examination of plant costs and revenues would clear this up. But as a rule power generation companies don’t disclose plant-by-plant data, citing fiduciary obligations and the marketplace edge such information would give to rivals. That leaves outsiders to take nuclear companies at their word. (Exelon has said that it will let policymakers have a look at some plants’ detailed data upon request.)

This is where specially appointed “Independent Market Monitors” play a big role. By decree of the nation’s main energy markets authority, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), each of the seven regional electricity markets in the U.S. must be regularly reviewed to ensure they are fair and competitive. The companies that perform these reviews are called Independent Market Monitors (IMMs). They are typically private companies staffed by energy experts.

Each IMM produces dense, statistics-packed reports whose bottomline takeaways are relied upon by regulators and policymakers to craft market policies.

IMM reports have occasionally offered up powerful ammunition to lawmakers seeking to counter the nuclear industry’s claims that it is losing too much money to keep plants up and running without subsidies. In New Jersey, one December 2017 report by an IMM — incidentally, the same IMM that oversees Exelon’s jeopardized nuclear plants in Illinois — said that energy company PSEG’s nuclear plants were in fact financially sustainable and not at risk of early retirement, contrary to PSEG’s claims. (Lawmakers did eventually approve subsidies for the three plants despite the report’s finding, but they weren’t happy about it."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottc...disagrees-inside-the-dispute/?sh=71b081051785

Additionally, because it can take decades for investors to get any return on their money, interest rates are critical. A below fair market rate must be considered a subsidy.

And then there is the unresolved issue of permanent waste disposal. The $44 billion set aside is unlikely to cover it.
 
Last edited:
"Biden tosses $6B lifeline to save struggling nuclear plants

eenews.net
https://www.eenews.net › Articles
Apr 20, 2022 — Timothy Fox, vice president at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, said that some nuclear operators, in comments to DOE, warned that $6 billion wasn' ..."


"
More Than Half of America's Nuclear Reactors Are Losing ...

Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com › news › articles › half-o...
Jun 14, 2017 — More than half of America's nuclear reactors are bleeding cash, racking up losses totaling about $2.9 billion a year, based on a Bloomberg ..."


Illinois approves $700 million in subsidies to Exelon ...

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › world › illinois-senate-close-p...
Sep 13, 2021 — The Illinois Senate on Monday saved two Exelon Corp nuclear power plants from closure by passing a bill that will provide $700 million in ..."
 
anonymoose said:
Just stating fact. You don’t find it ironic? Burning coal to make a “renewable “ nrg source work?
Click to expand...

Depends on how much coal they have to burn.

If wind power technology gets to the point where it generates enough electricity to result in a net reduction of the amount of coal that would have been used otherwise, then it's worthwhile.

Or maybe the turbines can eventually be augmented with some new, non-fossil fuel.

The entire point is to keep on working to perfect the technology to the point that wind is one component of a clean, alternative power source.

What the right seems to be saying is to just be satisfied with the old way and keep on destroying the environment because the lib'ruls don't like it.

That's just stupid.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Nuclear power is relatively cheap, and the numbers from operating plants prove that, just as the numbers from operating wind and solar plants prove what losers they are. Subsidies are perpetually necessary for wind and solar. Nuclear needs government to underwrite the project because of its immense upfront cost. Once a nuclear plant is running, subsidies are no longer necessary.
Click to expand...

If your bullshit could provide electricity, it would be the most efficient source ever.



Nuclear plants require no government subsidies because they can just put that nuclear waste in a concrete cask and leave it there for 200,000 years, no problem. The waste will be harmless long before the concrete deteriorates, right?


^^
Sarcasm, in case you are too stupid to figure it out.

But let's examine your logic.
Wind is bad because no one wanted to bid on locations to build offshore.
Nuclear is good because no one is bidding on building new reactors.

I see the error in your logic. Do you?
 
Good and not surprising considering the constant flow of Tax Payer money continually subsidizing Oil and Gas.

Would be very unfair to not have offsets.

Department of Energy Announces $39 Million for Oil and Natural Gas R&D Projects
Click to expand...


Follow the money: US subsidizes oil and gas so investors never lose
Finally, we have the numbers and they're not pretty, detailing how it doesn't matter what price fuel is.
Click to expand...

^^ couple examples of hundreds or probably thousands of the various forms of subsidies, just the US has put in over a hundred years to help lower the costs and make Oil and Gas more affordable with tax payer money.
 
QP! said:
Good and not surprising considering the constant flow of Tax Payer money continually subsidizing Oil and Gas.

Would be very unfair to not have offsets.






^^ couple examples of hundreds or probably thousands of the various forms of subsidies, just the US has put in over a hundred years to help lower the costs and make Oil and Gas more affordable with tax payer money.
Click to expand...


Guess what Ding-Bat?

There IS no Climate Crisis. Google "Clintel" - enlighten yourself.



Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND

DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top