I somewhat agree with you that we should allow the reactors we have continue to operate but I think we need to look at the condition of each, its track record, and the cost that we would incur were each to melt down.

We need to weigh the cost of installing replacement and closing early against the probable cost of a disaster. Take Indian Point, for example. If that reactor were to go sour an immense amount of infrastructure would be turned unusable and we have no ability to evacuate all the people in the danger zone in time.

If we can assure ourselves that a given reactor continues to be safe to operate and that we can bear the cost of a meltdown, then use them for a while longer. But we should be very honest with ourselves.

When built it was expected that these reactors would operate for 40 years. Now we are extending their lifetimes and increasing their output. Pushing an old piece of equipment is riskier than running it at its designed level or even cutting back a bit to reduce stresses.

You might decide that you’re willing to risk driving your old car with 150,000 miles on it, but it’s not necessarily a good thing to take it on the Autobahn and see if you can keep up with the late model Beemers.

Not arguing for new nuclear here though due to high cost as you pointed out. I’d argue that we should not accelerate the decommissioning of nuclear, but rather let them live out their remaining lives. The enormous cost of nuclear is at construction and decommissioning. Why not allow them to continue producing low emission cheap electricity and push back decommissioning as far back as is safe? It seems that focusing our resources on getting off fossil fuels first would be most beneficial in terms of the environment and the economy.

I would love to see the enormous amount energy spent arguing to close nuclear plants refocused on closing the much dirtier fossil fuel plants asap. Interested to hear everyone’s thoughts.

What you do is replace 1 GW of nuclear output capacity (capacity factor) with 1 GW of wind output capacity.

And since the 1 GW of wind output capacity is much cheaper than 1 GW of new nuclear output capacity you save a lot of money.

2. You have to have the standby capacity to replace a nuclear reactor when it goes off line. When wind goes offline, because multiple wind farms spread over area, output doesn’t suddenly disappear as happens with nuclear (or coal). Plus changes in wind farm output are more predictable than unscheduled nuclear and coal disruptions.

This makes it much easier to integrate wind (and solar) on to grids. It makes integration costs almost nothing.

3. Yes, Germany’s decision to speed the closure of nuclear plants, along with a cold winter, increased their burning of coal a bit and caused a small increase in CO2 emissions. That’s a temporary blip.

Few people expect everything to run as smoothly as plans might make it seem. Especially when new factors are added.

4. NG is not only more expensive in Germany, but it puts Germany in the position of being more under Russia’s influence.

5. I totally agree that the general public and even more importantly lawmakers need to be better informed. The quality of some of the individuals we are sending to Congress is abysmal. We have gerrymandered our way into giving influence to pockets of ignorance.

1. I’m not sure I understand why capacity factor is unimportant. My point was because of the significantly higher capacity factors of nuclear, you cannot replace 1GW of nuclear with 1GW of wind. It would in fact require much more that 1GW of nameplate wind capacity, which was discussed in the link I posted above.

2. Point understood, nuclear is not 100% reliable… it is 80%+ reliable as the capacity factor indicates. Thus, nuclear would have to be “backed up” much less than wind to ensure electricity is constantly produced for the grid.

3. You are definitely correct that the building of new coal in Germany began before Fukushima. However, the closing of nuclear plants has accelerated the need for new base load energy which Germany is meeting by both increasing the amount of renewables and also increasing the amount of coal power which has resulted in an increase in CO2 emissions (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/germany-to-add-most-coal-fired-plants-in-two-decades-iwr-says.html)

4. I agree with you that new coal is significantly cleaner than the old coal plants it is replacing. If replacing with a fossil fuel, I would much rather see coal replaced by cleaner gas but the price of gas in Europe is more expensive than in the US and gas plants are therefore less competitive.

5. I agree 100% that a focus needs to be made on efficiency and renewables to replace fossil fuels. The viewership of this website is infinitely more educated on this topic than the general public and perhaps I wasn’t clear in my last point…

I think the public (and policy makers if we’re being honest here) needs to be better educated with regard to the energy debate and what our options are, so they can better influence policy makers to make decisions that push us in the right direction. Without proper education, we run the risk of making policies without fully understanding their impact on the environment and the economy.

First, capacity factor is unimportant. The important metric is the cost of electricity produced.

Second, all generation has to be backed up. Nothing operates 24/365. France is having a problem with some of its reactors shutting down during heat spells. Nuclear is not 100% reliable.

Then, Germany is not building coal plants to replace nuclear. The coal plants they are building are replacements for old, less efficient plants they are closing. Construction on those plants began long before Fukushima melted down.

By 2020, 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed.

Furthermore those plants will be more efficient, releasing less CO2 per unit electricity produced than are the ones they are replacing. And the new coal plants are partially load-following.

Finally, how do we move quickest to eliminate fossil fuels from our grids? Via efficiency and accelerating the installation of renewables. This is very well discussed and very well understood.

What would help would be for fossil fuel and nuclear interests to cease muddying the water with their disinformation campaigns. But I suspect we will have to put up with their activity. They’re fighting a battle to delay their extinction as long as possible. Stuck pigs squealing, and all that….

A good case study to look at is how Germany is managing this same goal (to move from nuclear + fossil fuels to more renewables) and the difficulties that they have encountered (extremely high cost and actually increasing carbon emissions due to new coal coming online to replace nuclear).

While I fully support the goal of moving from fossil fuels to renewables as quickly as possible, I believe we have failed to have the right educated debates among the science/energy, economic, political, and public communities. More education is needed across the board on this topic and I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on how to achieve this.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/15/largest-wind-farm-in-southern-hemisphere-opens-down-under/

So 40 Euros a MWh or 4 Euro cents (5.76 Australian cents) a kilowatt-hour doesn’t seem unlikely if one takes into account Europe’s lower cost of capital. Location might be important though.

(My guess is that you are talking on american subsidized cost of wind power)

Isn’t that what the total wind and solar contribute to America’s energy mix? I would not say it is minor. Though minor compared to say China’s use of wind and solar.

Really? I’m glad they plan on dedicating 20 billion a year to RE starting in 2016 but what I don’t understand is why it will be anything other than just the opposite. That is extremely cheap. Either there is some hokey pokey going on with the money or the author’s view is that of a dinosaurs.