The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. “They’re too expensive,” Jon Wellinghoff told reporters today at a press conference in Washington hosted by the U.S. Energy Association. “The last price I saw for a nuke was north of $7,000 a kilowatt. That’s more expensive than a solar system.” ...
“There’s 500 to 700 gigawatts of developable wind throughout the Midwest,” he said, and “enough solar in the southwest, as we all know, to power the entire country. It’s a matter of being able to move it to loads.” Demand reductions and electricity storage could offset the intermittent nature of wind and solar, he said. The U.S. currently has generating capacity of about 800 gigawatts, Wellinghoff said.
Nuclear Power: More Expensive Than Solar
Other Posts by Big Gav
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
Robert Armstrong says:
Big Gav. Charles Barton is arguing as follows. In order to use wind for baseload localities must have far more wind generating capacity than they would need for their own needs. Localities where wind is blowing must provide for both their own needs and the needs of areas where the wind isn't blowing. Same thing with solar. In order to make a cost comparison with nuclear power you must account for the costs of redundancy and storage. Also Mr Barton is promoting a thorium based nuclear reactor. This is supposedly less expensive to build than the more common light water reactors of the present day.Charles Barton says:
Big Gav, My problem with renewable advocates is that they have not done the calculations, and get very upset when confronted with the reality. I looked at Mark Z. Jacobson's baseload wind. According to Jacobson, wind can be considered baseload if 17 localities can generate at least 20% of their capacity 80% of the time. 20% is 20%. That means you need a wind capacity equal to 5 times the base load goal, ST and PV power installations in California produce electricity at around 20% of capacity. That means if you want 1 GWs of base load electricity from solar, you need 5 GWs of solar gathering capacity, plus at least 19.5 GWh of energy or electrical storage capacity. We are not going to have realism coming to renewables advocate until the actually count the numbers. Renewable advocates fall back on Vague generalities, words like "efficiency" and "smart grid" and "diversification" in response to to serious criticism. We are not going to solve our energy problems by spin and hype.Big Gav says:
Charles - nuclear power is very expensive electricity - diversified renewables are not. You don't need 5 times the capacity (of some mythical 100% reliable nuke plant) - thats the point of diversification.<p>rmabelis - smart grids involve dynamic pricing based on supply and demand and empowering consumers to make their own decisions about when to run and not run all their devices that consume power (including their electric vehicle recharges as we shift away from oil dependency). You can run your air-con and plasma TV all day if you are willing to pay market price for it.Robert Armstrong says:
John Robb and other thinkers in the resilient communities movement advocate systems which are not complicated and can withstand attack. I suspect intercontinental electric smart grids are not what they have in mind. Somehow I suspect smart grid demand management will involve cutting off peoples freezers and even plasma televisions when demand exceeds supply. If the supply shortage is large enough they aren't going to like it. Like it or not at this time avoiding that supply shortage is going to require nuclear power. This is what the debate over Mr. Wellinghoff's opposition to nuclear power is all about.Charles Barton says:
Big Gav, what you call "sufficient diversity of location and type of power" i call redundancy. If you build 5 times the capacity you really need, you can probably create a reliable grid from renewables. That is of course extremely expensive, and will produce very expensive electricity. If you want cheap power you go with factory built, modular LFTRs.Big Gav says:
rmabelis and Charles - intermittency isn't really an issue for renewables once you have sufficient diversity of location and type of power (even nuclear plants are down some of the time after all - there is no such thing as "100% baseload").The key to reaching 100% clean energy is expanding our grids to make them continent wide (or even intercontinental, as Bucky Fuller advocated) and harnessing solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal and wave energy, along with biogas from the most appropriate locations.
Coupled with demand management via a smart grid and some energy storage (which solar thermal plants will include in the coming years, for example) there is no need for old world coal and nuclear power, with all their inherent problems regarding resource availability and pollution.
Dan Yurman says:
At my blog on nuclear energy Idaho Samizdat I have also weighed in on Mr. Wellinghoff, but first I'd like to acknowledge the work of two other nuclear bloggers
Nuclear bloggers want to send Wellinghoff to the showers
So far the White House has been mum about Wellinghoff’s speech. Meanwhile, Wellinghoff came in for a roasting in the nuclear blogsphere. To use a baseball metaphor, they pulled him from the lineup and sent him to the showers. At least that’s what they’d like to see the Obama Administration do. I would too.
- At Atomic Insights Rod Adams called Wellinghoff “dangerous.” He noted that before joining the federal energy commission in 2006, Mr. Wellinghoff, a lawyer, “focused exclusively on client matters related to renewable energy, energy efficiency and distributed generation,” according to FERC’s official bio.
Adams adds that Wellinghoff fails to understand how important it is to have reliable electrical power that is not dependent on the whims of the weather. At best, he notes, solar and wind work well about 30% of the time.
At Blogging About the Unthinkable, Sovietologist used a pen warmed up in Cerekov radiation to say that Wellinghoff has “absolutely no idea what he is talking about.” He writes, “Wellinghoff is seriously confused, both in terms of the current status of renewable technology but also in that he's proposing technological frameworks that are currently wishful thinking.”
He closed with this assessment. “Wellinghoff is a technological fantasist who's determined to pick energy winners before they've been tested in the real world. It's rather akin to trying to pick the winning racehorse before it has been born.”
While Wellinghoff was playing to the Obama administration’s green supporters, in Congress Sec. of Energy Steven Chu told the House Energy & Commerce Committee,
“I believe nuclear power has to be part of the energy mix in this century.” He said the U.S. has to regain its lead in nuclear energy. “We are trying to start the American nuclear industry again.”
Mr. Wellinghoff needs to call the Energy Secretary and get his playbook up-to-date. Right now it is missing very important pages with the words “nuclear” and “baseload demand” in the headings.
# # #
Robert Armstrong says:
And the wind to blow all day and night. People want dependable power. There is some question whether solar and wind can supply it. You have to consider storage when considering the cost of solar and wind as compared to a form of energy that can supply power constantly such as nuclear.A guest says:
At 90% availability of full capacity, the Wellinghoff nuke price is $7700 per 100% available kW of capacity.
To be less expensive, solar collection and storage would have to be less than $1950 per kW at 25% solar capacity factor.
Are we really there yet? How would we even know until the storage component can be priced and its in and out losses quantified?
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »
Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »
Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Gary Hunt
- Jesse Jenkins
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Jim Pierobon
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- Dan Yurman

About Social Media Today




