Where Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is located is where cold and warm water currents meet. Depending on season and vargrents of the currents this particular area on the coast experiences large swings ocean water tempatures. What's interesting in the ocean life in this area is the presents of both cold and warm water adapted ocean life. Because of this massive shifting of water tempatures currents the hot water flow from the NPP out flow is a absolute miniscule effect on ocean life in this area. Maybe somewhere else a NPP heat outflow might create a environmental problem but not where the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is located.
Basically the best thing personally for my family would be to replace my windows to make house more emergency efficient. Replace NG furnace with heat pump. Add solar water heater. In other words limit exposure to energy market.
> Basically the best thing personally for my family Great. It probably is. However, consider that another high-value benefit for your family is to have a functioning society (y'know, providing food, education, entertainment, building materials, sewage, garbage collection, etc, etc, etc). Thus we all need to support a vibrant, moderate-cost energy market.
If you are looking at electricity markets, you might want to look at Texas - wind and solar penetration are extremely high, but the challenges and responses to them have been very different than in California, and make an interesting counterpoint for a different way to do things (with new and different issues!)
Great presentation Mark. The thing that worries me is the complexity of subjects like this and the decline in public education. Vast majorities of Americans are now poorly educated. Math skills, Verbal skills, Vocational skills at all time lows. I'm not sure topics this complicated can be presented to voters in a way they can comprehend. I have a degree in Physics and needed to listen carefully to follow the details. Thanks for taking the time to share this knowledge.
1:22:00 -- you guys nailed it. I recently installed solar, batteries, and a nat-gas fired generator behind my meter. Not to be "green" or to save money, but because I no longer trust the grid. Even here in PJM territory, reliable base-load plants are being shuttered because they can't compete with intermittent sources when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Of course the irony is that I'm making things worse by dumping my excess solar back into the grid and treating it as a free battery (we still have 1:1 net metering here). But the overriding concern was to ensure that I have reliable power no matter how unreliable the grid becomes.
Decouple is always good. Could you get a guest to spend an hour explaining the US Navies nuclear power program and possible civilian use of their small reactor designs.
There will never be civilian use of navy reactors as they exist now, they use weapons grade fuel to allow the reactors to be small enough for a ship/sub.
Last night was reading the USAEC's Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 from June 1974. The economic basis for Bellefonte was that it would operate for 30 years and the first 15 years would have a 80% capacity factor, the next 10 years it would be 55% and the last five years there would be a 43% capacity factor. Interesting to hear Diablo Canyon also was based on low capacity factors.
California would still be getting power from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station if defects hadn’t occurred in replacement steam generators. Diablo Canyon life has been extended. PS - Nuclear in California given earthquake risk was never a great idea. Japan chose to accept the risk and live with it PS2 - Natural gas is supply constrained in California due to pipeline capacity
> California would still be getting power from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station if defects hadn’t occurred in replacement steam generators. Yes, Nelson pointed this out in the video, and suggested that the steam generators should have been replaced. > Diablo Canyon life has been extended. Yes, a very safe plant producing over 10% of CA's electricity. > PS - Nuclear in California given earthquake risk was never a great idea. Japan chose to accept the risk and live with it Fukushima Daiichi was pretty close to one of the biggest earthquakes in history, and had no problems riding out the earthquake, unlike the tsunami sent its way. In the same vein, Diablo Canyon is designed to ride out an earthquake and given that "The elevation of the Fukushima site is approximately 20 feet (6.1 m) above sea level, while Diablo Canyon sits on a bluff 85 feet (26 m) above sea level." it doesn't really have a tsunamic problem. > PS2 - Natural gas is supply constrained in California due to pipeline capacity Again, pointed out by Nelson that its easier to locate NPPs close to the demand than import energy across the Sierras.
This guy gave a relatively good description of what is going on in electric industry. I worked for one of the largest electric utility companies for years. I worked in nuclear plants, fossil plants, transmission stations, distribution stations and the System Control Center. Based upon my experience I always thought going "green" was crazy. Get ready for it, electric rates will go through the roof and working/middle class people will have to choose between food and electricity.
Your "experience" was the Central Plant Model. Central Plants generate, send out, hits retail meters, and money flows back in. All Last Century. World is moving on from that.
@@philtimmons722 The economy of scale is a real thing. This is why central stations were built in the first place. Building many means many more parts. Building many means many more people to maintain. Perhaps big outages won't occur since you no longer have the big single point failure, but I don't think it will matter much to the individual customer. He will pay more for all of that redundancy.
@@daniellarson3068 Not true. Have ran the math, and the philosophy you are stating is out-of-date. I understand what you are citing -- it is standard sophomore Micro-Economics. Back when Electricity generation efficiency required LARGE Capital it may have had some truth. Now with Distributed Renewable being the low-cost leader, the inverse is true. Present new costs are down to wholesale prices BEHIND the meter. That means a Central Plant not only has to compete with a per-unit price peer at the far end, there is not even any money to cover transmission and distribution out to the Retail Meter -- which typically add up to more than the Central Plant costs. The remote small generation is not so much redundant as it is system-level optimization. At this point, US Nukes have all been put on welfare to avoid Bankruptcy, and 50% Punitive Tariffs are being up AGAINST Solar PV just to protect the Top End / Big Corporate Capitalists.
The nuclear-plus-storage idea is what PG&E had in mind when they built the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. At the same time as they were building Diablo Canyon, they built the Helms Pumped Storage Plant up in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The idea was to run Diablo Canyon at full power 24/7, use excess overnight power to recharge Helms, and then use Helms to help meet the midday peak electricity demand.
I’ve heard about that. I live in Paso Robles and was told that the large electrical lines cutting through this area go to Helms. I don’t know if that’s true though.
Net metering should be replaced by smart metering. Smart metering would be paying the value of the electricity when it is being produced. So if you have a battery or EV that you charge during the day when electricity prices is maybe negative or from your own solar and you sell this power at a higher price in the evening then the Utility would welcome your contribution to the grid. This would be a fair use of reimbursement home power management.
you are sort of close -- but have the time-of-use and time-of-production backwards. In general, the Night is surplus, and the Daytime is heavy use. So Solar PV (without storage) already closely aligns to the higher use time.
@@philtimmons722 You have it backwards. High use is evening. Solar PV is high 2 hours before and after noon. Steeply sloped before and after that. Rooftop solar has negative market value.
@@philtimmons722 in California solar produces a surplus around mid day. Peak usage is in evening. Of course cloudy windless days will cause shortages. A smart meter would be using power when the price is low and selling when the price is high. The TerraPower's Nathan reactor kind of does the same thing. Storing power in molten salt when electrical wholesale prices are low and selling power when prices are high.
@@stanleytolle416 Some days. (California daytime surplus I mean) Spring and Fall in particular due to low(er) Air Conditioning loads. But we have to design for the Peaks and "worse" cases, which are Winter and Summer. And we have to do things so they can make money to keep things going. Meanwhile across the US, daytime surplus is not the case. A better plan would be export surplus (when surplus) and be able to import in turn when needed. As far as storage -- thermal storage, if used for thermal loads tends to work well. For Thermal Loads. But not so much for Electrical Generation loads. Because as practiced it has to go to additional Steam, Turbines, Generators, Transformers, and Transmission -- all dedicated full-time for the part-time use of the Thermal Storage-Generation. That makes for enormous Capital Cost and O&M for a part-time source. Have you seen elevated (water) storage? The pumps function as generators on the return cycle and have a high rate of regeneration from the surplus electricity put in.
Disconnect from the grid is pretty cheap now - about 3 years of electricity bills. (Sydney Australia, also about 33 c/KWHr) We have had about 2 days per year without power due to grid maintenance.
The reason people spend serious money for backup generators to assure reliable power for their homes and businesses is that the value having power to use greatly outweighs the cost of buying power off the grid. Have you ever heard anyone who lost power to their home for a couple of days say, "on the otherhand, being off the grid for a couple of days will save me $10 or $15 on this month's electric bill"? The retail price of grid-based electricity in California is getting close to the break-even price for self generation with a home diesel generator unit. It costs $0.25 to $0.30 per kilowatt-hour in fuel costs to run a home unit on off-road diesel fuel.
In terms of California's institutional insanity over energy, I agree with Mark Nelson's well thought out and delivered thoughts on the topic. If it takes Mark an hour to make the case to interested listeners, what chance of communication success do we have in a population that gets its news from social media? This is a complicated topic. The legislature is debating another public reaction bandaid price fix at the moment. I've taken the affluent resident's exit, installing a small NEM 3 PV with battery. I think the long answer is a battery solution that is yet to come. There are no doubt bright minds noodling new idea right now.
The ocean where Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is located is where warm and cold ocean currents meet. The ocean tempature here swings massively here depending on changing currents and weather patterns. The ocean life here is adapted to these wide swings in water tempatures with both cold and warm water organisms being present in this area. The amount of heat and cold exchanging here is several thousand times the heat outputted by the nuclear plant. Because of this the DCNPP has essentially no effect on the ocean life in the area.
The uk mastered Nuclear/coal storage in the 70's-80's 1-2M homes were heated by heating up a storage heater, a box of bricks and a water tank, over night on cheap power to release and use all day long.
Great episode!! Do you have on your radar an episode on the environmental impacts of Uranium mining? Since there are a lot of restarts happening, seems like it would be timely - keep up the great work!
WHY WOULD THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY DO THIS? Sorry, Californians were lied to, it's frustrating. San Onofre producing @ $30 to $40/MWhr. FML. My parents are paying $400/MWhr in Los Angeles, and in the summer months, consume 3 MWhr. That's a 4 figure electric bill. Tragic
Source: My parents paid a ~$1,200 electric bill in August 2023, though the rates were a little lower than 400/MWhr, and they used slightly more than 3MWhr
There's a new geothermal energy approach that uses a new drilling technique that makes geothermal practical anywhere, not just in volcanic areas because it makes drilling bore holes 10 to 15 miles into the Earth possible to tap the natural heat at that depth. Look up: new geothermal electricity project Utah. It means geothermal power plants that deliver renewable energy 24/7 can be built in areas that used to be coal or natural gas plants and connect to the grid.
@@oo-bb4qs We will know soon enough. The Google geothermal power plant is already up and running in Nevada. There are plans for at least three more in the US. It is a relatively cheap source of energy since it doesn’t rely on any fuel, it draws heat energy from deep in the Earth. The biggest cost is drilling the boreholes. It could definitely be used as base power since geothermal doesn’t depend on the weather or any other surface conditions. The plant could run 24/7. These new geothermal power plants could be built at the location of abandoned power plants to save even more money, since those plants already have the transmission lines to reach people in populated areas.
@@johncoviello8570 the anti nuclear propaganda and regulation has been so intense people will really dig a 10 mile deep borehole just to avoid having to store harmless dry casks.. Hilariously that borehole tech would completely solve geologic storage of nuclear waste and there’s no “we’ll see” about any of it.
In CA and we managed to get approved for NEM 2.0. Though we have not yet installed the solar system. At tier 3 we have paid $0.53 per kWh. If we only get paid back what you state that would hardly make it worthwhile.
Please tell me the up sides and downsides of Variable pricing on the rooftop solar folks. Can we incentivize them to provide their energy to the grid when it actually is needed? Is it ok if they have a battery?
In the eastern half of Texas you get the cheap industrial power by buying your own generating equipment and buy the gas and then you generate and don’t sell to anyone. The regulators will leave you alone.
I know this is just a podcast but it would be good to get more figures on how much the costs have gone up. Doesn't look too bad to me from what I can see online.
Like ERCOT? Texas Feb 2021, blizzard plus sub-zero temps for about 2 weeks. Prices rose from the typical $50/MWh to $9,000/MWh. But, y'know dynamic pricing didn't bring much power onto the grid! Both demand and supply are inelastic, which means dynamic prices are an insane idea. (inelastic means that demand isn't really driven by price - its driven more by things like the World Cup/Superbowl/weather; ditto the supply - sure I'd love to take advantage of the 9,000/MWh price, but since it takes 2-3 years to build a small powerplant, it isn't even worth beginning to plan out for a 2 week cold snap, let alone trying to build one; ditto laying in a new transmission line from a neighboring geography).
> Won’t the growth of grid scale batteries balance the grid flow? Sure. However, not enough. The scale is much larger and over longer periods of time than what current batteries can support. Also, batteries have a low return-on-assets; you can build out batteries to deal with the scale/time, but they mostly sit idle, because you aren't charging/discharging to deal with the average scenario, but the extreme scenario. Think about a stadium, if we built it for the average attendance, we would build 1 seat (because the stadium is literally empty most of the time). However, we don't build it for the average attendance, or even the average game-day attendance; we build stadiums for PEAK game-day attendance!
Spending trillions on grid level lithium ion batteries is A solution. It’s not a great solution, considering my laptop uses the same technology and 6 years later is useless unless plugged into the grid! 😂
Dependent is not the right word. You import power when it is less expensive than producing it locally. The California Public Utilities Commission also wants an economical and reliable power supply for the state.
@@philipdamask2279 > You import power when it is less expensive than producing it locally You are putting the cart before the horse. You don't purchase and import power because it is cheap, you do so because you need to - hopefully obtaining the lowest cost electricity. We can see this in Quebec and Germany. Quebec's neighbors found themselves in an dire situation a few winters ago - reservoirs were down and demand was high. Quebec, quite rightly, shut off the neighbors and supplied their own citizens first. So, the neighbors, not having power - cheap or dear - had brownouts/blackouts. Germany has much more expensive electricity than its neighbors. One reason is that intermittent wind/solar comes on all at once. So, with lots of wind power the price drops and Germany exports. When the wind dies down, the price rises and Germany imports. Buy high sell low - not a great formula. So, you have a great theory there (to import when prices are low) it just doesn't work in practice - because not only is the demand inelastic, the supply is also. Electricity isn't this magic stuff that just comes out of wall sockets.
Yes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant "The elevation of the Fukushima site is approximately 20 feet (6.1 m) above sea level, while Diablo Canyon sits on a bluff 85 feet (26 m) above sea level."
So if I’m hearing this right, the problem in California was not the tech/renewable mandate; it was the ridiculously inefficient and disconnected from really bureaucracy and regulation and government commissions. My conclusion: the grid/distribution should be govt/public owned. Just like highway/roads. And private business uses those public roads to provide the best products and services. Similarly, all the power generators can be private and regulated. They can compete to provide the cheapest energy.
I was about to write a comment saying - so is California the Germany of the USA then? I thought naah, it's way too insulting - then Marc did say it! :)
If Cali had 1000 small molten salt thorium reactors of 300megawatts it's cost per megawat would be 1/2 to 1/4 as much as currently. AND FOR MANY YEARS. The Cali situation is nearing an inability to correct it's power sit-rep. Especially by over-reliance on low power density construction.
@@philtimmons722 I've heard over and over that the molten salt experiment at Oak Ridge worked very well. I remember interviews with the folks that actually ran the experiment.
the cost of energy needs to go up most everywhere around the world - we have been susidizing it for too long- and now we have climate change and a poorly designed city, buildings and habbits due to it. now we need to tax all forms of pollution and become Very energy efficient- thus use less energy!
Interesting watching the two world (Europe vs USA) bash each others model's of 'failure'. 'Europe' isn't a single entity any more that the States of America are ('California'?) are a single entity. Yes the grids are within the two regions are interconnected, but are regulated by their respective states/nations with a range of coordination measures. The laws of thermodynamics haven't changed: You can't win; the best you can do is draw; the game is rigged, you can't get out of the game. It's still good CPD ;-)
Another form of base electricity that should be pursued is the new geothermal energy using a drilling technology that can get down to 10 to 15 miles below the earth’s surface where it is warm enough to make geothermal practical just about anywhere. Google is built a test new geothermal plant in Nevada that’s up and running.
Not up to the usual standards - very high bar. I’ve suggested before - and particularly needed here - this is a particularly messy topic - and screams for some structure - best achieved by some advance work between the two of you about what will be covered, in what order, and how it all ties together, and as y’all have done many times before, perhaps itemize loose threads that will be addressed in future sessions.
Some say nuclear electricity for every country. 80% of the world's population is in dictatorships. Dictators love nuclear industries 😮 Nuclear electricity to fill EVs, but with EVs big batteries we DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY. Fossil fuels were complicated and a mystery until they were not. Batteries and rooftop solar PV are getting dirt cheap. I do many a disservice by being gentle about their stupid ideas. The grid is insanely expensive and uneconomic beyond what we have. All electricity users will have to make most electricity at home and store at home. Or in their work building. In climate extreme the energy in the atmosphere will explode.
> All electricity users will have to make most electricity at home and store at home. Or in their work building. Thus trading in the flexibility, economies of scale, and division of labor advantages of a grid, for rigid, high-asset low-value, jacks-of-all-trades-master-of-none shoddy single point generation.
@microburn Back off a little. The EV battery management includes liquid temperature management and is showing very little battery degradation. Even battery recycling operations are finding fewer EV batteries available. Compared to their business projections. When Australia 20 million vehicles are EVs, then the real savings will be part of the economy.
You guys need more views. I don't normally recommend it, but, get some Bikini Girls in those thumbnails. *Nuclear* *Bikini* *Babes* 🇨🇦 🍻 🇺🇸. *EXCELLENT* *CHANNEL* *DOC*
I'd go as far to say that the new microwave drilling technique that makes geothermal energy possible anywhere on Earth regardless of volcanic activity would be the final slayer of nuclear power. Geothermal energy can produce electricity 24/7 no matter what's happening on the surface of Earth. It's coming and it's going to be cheap (no fuel, no waste). Look up this article for details: New Geothermal Energy Drilling Technology Could Save Humans From Additional Global Warming
California has massive geothermal potential. Like around the Salton Sea area a two giga watt plant is being developed. Another interesting development is the extraction of lithium and other materials from the hot brine being brought up. The amount of Li being rather staggering, enough for millions of electric cars. This geo power having the ability to be dispatchable to making up for the intermittency of of other renewables sources of electricity.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Proof of concept? Google just completed a new geothermal plant in the Nevada desert last fall. It’s way beyond any initial stage. More to come. Next one is being built in Nevada.
@@johncoviello8570 It needs to be tested for years before you get all excited. There were a lot of geothermal plants that had to be abandoned in the past. They worked for a number of years and petered out.
It is what comes up with the steam or brine that causes economic problems for geothermal plants. And yes geothermal plants normally face the problem of depleting the heat source.
Mark really really really loves nuclear. whatever saves the npp may that be bitcoin, evs or ai, whatever increases load. I thought we liked nuclear because it is the only solution to global warming. i at least do.
Politics need to stay out of it when possible, Coal is no longer competitive with natural Gas. Kentucky GOP are trying to force coal on the grid. Keep politics out of the grid.
Easy to see that this guest is paid to support the old obsolete concept of energy supply being the exclusive right of "regulated" monopolies, who ALWAYS hate any real market forces. Their problem now is that the supposed "infallible" regulators failed to predict the future where PV generation is gotten so cheap it completely undercuts the promises regulators made to generators in the past. The US is WAY BEHIND the world in refusing to separate the bill for distribution from the bill for generation. This makes no sense, and makes "$/mwhr" comparisons impossible, a condition he/they clearly want.
#1 - Outstanding guest # 2 - First rate interviewer... Comment: Europe is an anachronism - a dangerous one. These countries haven's changed their standard operating procedures in 2+ millennia : rule by an ultra-privileged elite totally indifferent to the interests of the plebes (except the rare occasions when they set Paris or Berlin on fire). We see this today in energy / socioeconomic policy - and far more alarming - their eagerness tripping into a another world war adventure. As for Cali, the state is way too damn large to function effectively; the average CA resident when they think about Sacramento probably picture in their minds a drive-through interchange on the way to Tahoe. Like Europe, special interest political hacks end up calling the shots, naturally.
California is really relying solar and wind but California can if they but more geothermal battery's wind solar small nuclear power and natural gas for back up
The capitalist Industrial Era has been built on relatively cheap, plentiful, and technologically simple commodities and technologies, sort of a perfect serendipitous storm that really isn't the norm in history. But now we have two foundational commodities, oil and coal, that must go, no further debate. But capitalism cannot run on increasingly expensive base resources. It sends deadly cost shock waves up through the stack. So yes, when we start fooling around with foundational components of capitalist industrialism, lots of vibration in bad positive feedback.
@erkinalp Actually, I can easily visualise the EVs big battery being the packet of electricity energy. Topping up all day and supplying as peak demands sweep through the national electrical grid. For example, a cloud cover moves across many rooftop solar PV systems and the out put drops. Or at night, the normal quiet time, EV battery is supplying. If you do the maths of total numbers of EVs, big batteries, and daily electricity demand, it is all within the workable possibilities.
@Billy97ify Hahaha 😆 Actually, everyone talks about how many hours a day a generator works, its utility factor, and the nuclear promoters say it has the highest utility factor. If you only build base load capacity. Nuclear is expensive to turn off or turn down to lower levels of supply. In the USA, 300 million vehicles are a $10TRILLION asset with 300 million big batteries parked 23hrs every day. The modern EV battery with liquid temperature controlled battery management system shows extremely long lifetime durability. To claim high utility as the criteria means 300 million vehicles, big batteries must be used 24hrs daily. Nuclear is a waste of resources.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 What are you trying to say? Use EV batteries for the grid? Then they cant be used for driving. You can't drive if you just discharged your battery into the grid. For driving you need to keep the battery charged.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Turns into babbling nonsense by 44:00. And the host just sits there bobble-heading the nonsense without (maybe not even understanding) even challenging the nonsense.
Over the episodes the tone is becoming more and more aggressive towards electricity markets and it is a bit like negating math or physics. The line of thinking of "nuclear can only thrive in an obscure vertically integrated competionless electricity sector" is a bit laughable as it shows that it is not economically viable and you can only make it happen when you indirectly subsidise it. High penetration nuclear cannibalises the economics of those nuclear plants like no other due to its high CAPEX. Look, I am a fan of nuclear but have also studied electricity markets and there is no way around it, we do not have a single reliable price point that indicates that building new nuclear is cheaper than adding renewables, even with all of its intermittency flaws. Let's not negate the fundamental math and economic behaviours behind electricity markets.
> the tone is becoming more and more aggressive towards electricity markets and it is a bit like negating math or physics. However, this is mostly a factor of how the 'market' is set up. In the US and most of the West, the market hasn't priced intermittent electricity differently the dispatchable electricity - so sure, it "doesn't work", but that could also be stated as "it won't work because it hasn't in the past and we don't want to change". The current 'market' is designed to be expansive and equate energy generation with success, but were we to design the market to meet demand load reliably, we would have different incentives and a market more favorable to nuclear finance.
@@lukacsnemeth1652 Electricity is a tradeable good as any other, with the particularity that storage is very difficult. That is why you need to have suitable market that models this characteristic. Ignoring this and treating it like a service only will lead you to an inefficient allocation of welfare as you have limited information about the demand or supply.
@@factnotfiction5915Most of the markets in western countries have several layers to cope with the intermittency of renewables. You have the main day-ahead energy market, and as you get closer to the time horizon you have intra-day markets, regulation markets, ancillary markets and ultimately restrictions set by the PSO/TSO. These are supposed to bring in the revenue and signal the need for additional capacity on top of the inflexible renewable and btw, nuclear. The thing is, with low marginal price sources like nuclear, wind, solar or hydro, it is ultimately scarcity pricing is what dictates the demand for additional capacity and only happens when you push the system. What Mark is proposing here is bundling the generators, distributors, TSO and PSO in one and getting rid of any market driven pricing information.
Dankspain you got a lot of Lazard LCOE all over your analysis and it shows! Ignoring the time value of electricity makes your analysis bad, it doesn’t make the value 0
Good to see the legend again on the world’s best energy show!
Industrial electricity in France has the same prize as USA average. Only gas is more expensive since we can't get it cheaply from Russia anymore.
Yup, France has cheap electricity from nuclear,
Germany has expensive electricity from wind/solar/coal.
Such a contrast!
Where Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is located is where cold and warm water currents meet. Depending on season and vargrents of the currents this particular area on the coast experiences large swings ocean water tempatures. What's interesting in the ocean life in this area is the presents of both cold and warm water adapted ocean life. Because of this massive shifting of water tempatures currents the hot water flow from the NPP out flow is a absolute miniscule effect on ocean life in this area. Maybe somewhere else a NPP heat outflow might create a environmental problem but not where the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is located.
Mark Nelson once said that he really wanted to tell about sodium reactors. Maybe next time you can talk about this topic?
Basically the best thing personally for my family would be to replace my windows to make house more emergency efficient. Replace NG furnace with heat pump. Add solar water heater. In other words limit exposure to energy market.
> Basically the best thing personally for my family
Great. It probably is.
However, consider that another high-value benefit for your family is to have a functioning society (y'know, providing food, education, entertainment, building materials, sewage, garbage collection, etc, etc, etc). Thus we all need to support a vibrant, moderate-cost energy market.
consider flywheel generators
If you are looking at electricity markets, you might want to look at Texas - wind and solar penetration are extremely high, but the challenges and responses to them have been very different than in California, and make an interesting counterpoint for a different way to do things (with new and different issues!)
Great presentation Mark. The thing that worries me is the complexity of subjects like this and the decline in public education. Vast majorities of Americans are now poorly educated. Math skills, Verbal skills, Vocational skills at all time lows. I'm not sure topics this complicated can be presented to voters in a way they can comprehend. I have a degree in Physics and needed to listen carefully to follow the details. Thanks for taking the time to share this knowledge.
It’s okay to have to think about nuanced things! Add to the Zeitgeist
The best decouple episode to my memory.
Mark Nelson truly is the best
Hype!!!
Unless he gets the wrong conclusion by ignoring a few more facts.
1:22:00 -- you guys nailed it. I recently installed solar, batteries, and a nat-gas fired generator behind my meter. Not to be "green" or to save money, but because I no longer trust the grid. Even here in PJM territory, reliable base-load plants are being shuttered because they can't compete with intermittent sources when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Of course the irony is that I'm making things worse by dumping my excess solar back into the grid and treating it as a free battery (we still have 1:1 net metering here). But the overriding concern was to ensure that I have reliable power no matter how unreliable the grid becomes.
Mustache Party!🎉🎉
Decouple is always good. Could you get a guest to spend an hour explaining the US Navies nuclear power program and possible civilian use of their small reactor designs.
look up pebble bed reactors, stupid simple, stupid safe
There will never be civilian use of navy reactors as they exist now, they use weapons grade fuel to allow the reactors to be small enough for a ship/sub.
Mirroring the weapons grade uranium problem - a selling point of many reactors are their inability to be configured as a weapon.
Mustache guy on the lefts sarcasm blessed me at the beginning 😢
You should get Chris Handmer on. He's probably the smartest person that could defend RE
Mark is a hoot! This was a great listen!
Last night was reading the USAEC's Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 from June 1974. The economic basis for Bellefonte was that it would operate for 30 years and the first 15 years would have a 80% capacity factor, the next 10 years it would be 55% and the last five years there would be a 43% capacity factor. Interesting to hear Diablo Canyon also was based on low capacity factors.
Mark Nelson certainly has his facts together. Thanks for putting together this podcast.
California would still be getting power from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station if defects hadn’t occurred in replacement steam generators. Diablo Canyon life has been extended.
PS - Nuclear in California given earthquake risk was never a great idea. Japan chose to accept the risk and live with it
PS2 - Natural gas is supply constrained in California due to pipeline capacity
> California would still be getting power from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station if defects hadn’t occurred in replacement steam generators.
Yes, Nelson pointed this out in the video, and suggested that the steam generators should have been replaced.
> Diablo Canyon life has been extended.
Yes, a very safe plant producing over 10% of CA's electricity.
> PS - Nuclear in California given earthquake risk was never a great idea. Japan chose to accept the risk and live with it
Fukushima Daiichi was pretty close to one of the biggest earthquakes in history, and had no problems riding out the earthquake, unlike the tsunami sent its way.
In the same vein, Diablo Canyon is designed to ride out an earthquake and given that "The elevation of the Fukushima site is approximately 20 feet (6.1 m) above sea level, while Diablo Canyon sits on a bluff 85 feet (26 m) above sea level." it doesn't really have a tsunamic problem.
> PS2 - Natural gas is supply constrained in California due to pipeline capacity
Again, pointed out by Nelson that its easier to locate NPPs close to the demand than import energy across the Sierras.
Same thing happening in Australia excepting Quality Brown coal instead of Nuclear.
But no discussion just forced through by green dreamers.
This guy gave a relatively good description of what is going on in electric industry. I worked for one of the largest electric utility companies for years. I worked in nuclear plants, fossil plants, transmission stations, distribution stations and the System Control Center. Based upon my experience I always thought going "green" was crazy. Get ready for it, electric rates will go through the roof and working/middle class people will have to choose between food and electricity.
Your "experience" was the Central Plant Model. Central Plants generate, send out, hits retail meters, and money flows back in. All Last Century. World is moving on from that.
Yes, you can see your experience play out in Europe where electricity is super-expensive.
@william you should share this so others can learn as well!
@@philtimmons722 The economy of scale is a real thing. This is why central stations were built in the first place. Building many means many more parts. Building many means many more people to maintain. Perhaps big outages won't occur since you no longer have the big single point failure, but I don't think it will matter much to the individual customer. He will pay more for all of that redundancy.
@@daniellarson3068 Not true. Have ran the math, and the philosophy you are stating is out-of-date. I understand what you are citing -- it is standard sophomore Micro-Economics. Back when Electricity generation efficiency required LARGE Capital it may have had some truth. Now with Distributed Renewable being the low-cost leader, the inverse is true. Present new costs are down to wholesale prices BEHIND the meter. That means a Central Plant not only has to compete with a per-unit price peer at the far end, there is not even any money to cover transmission and distribution out to the Retail Meter -- which typically add up to more than the Central Plant costs. The remote small generation is not so much redundant as it is system-level optimization. At this point, US Nukes have all been put on welfare to avoid Bankruptcy, and 50% Punitive Tariffs are being up AGAINST Solar PV just to protect the Top End / Big Corporate Capitalists.
Great episode, thank you
Can anyone inform americans that Europe and Germany is not the same thing?
Sure they are just the richest Europeans. Fair enough though
The nuclear-plus-storage idea is what PG&E had in mind when they built the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. At the same time as they were building Diablo Canyon, they built the Helms Pumped Storage Plant up in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The idea was to run Diablo Canyon at full power 24/7, use excess overnight power to recharge Helms, and then use Helms to help meet the midday peak electricity demand.
I’ve heard about that. I live in Paso Robles and was told that the large electrical lines cutting through this area go to Helms. I don’t know if that’s true though.
I'd be interested in an episode about the energy situation in Spain.
Mark tangentially mentioned they're closing reactors.
Net metering should be replaced by smart metering. Smart metering would be paying the value of the electricity when it is being produced. So if you have a battery or EV that you charge during the day when electricity prices is maybe negative or from your own solar and you sell this power at a higher price in the evening then the Utility would welcome your contribution to the grid. This would be a fair use of reimbursement home power management.
Smart metering is totally doable these days. Good idea!
you are sort of close -- but have the time-of-use and time-of-production backwards. In general, the Night is surplus, and the Daytime is heavy use. So Solar PV (without storage) already closely aligns to the higher use time.
@@philtimmons722 You have it backwards. High use is evening. Solar PV is high 2 hours before and after noon. Steeply sloped before and after that. Rooftop solar has negative market value.
@@philtimmons722 in California solar produces a surplus around mid day. Peak usage is in evening. Of course cloudy windless days will cause shortages. A smart meter would be using power when the price is low and selling when the price is high. The TerraPower's Nathan reactor kind of does the same thing. Storing power in molten salt when electrical wholesale prices are low and selling power when prices are high.
@@stanleytolle416 Some days. (California daytime surplus I mean) Spring and Fall in particular due to low(er) Air Conditioning loads. But we have to design for the Peaks and "worse" cases, which are Winter and Summer. And we have to do things so they can make money to keep things going. Meanwhile across the US, daytime surplus is not the case. A better plan would be export surplus (when surplus) and be able to import in turn when needed. As far as storage -- thermal storage, if used for thermal loads tends to work well. For Thermal Loads. But not so much for Electrical Generation loads. Because as practiced it has to go to additional Steam, Turbines, Generators, Transformers, and Transmission -- all dedicated full-time for the part-time use of the Thermal Storage-Generation. That makes for enormous Capital Cost and O&M for a part-time source. Have you seen elevated (water) storage? The pumps function as generators on the return cycle and have a high rate of regeneration from the surplus electricity put in.
Disconnect from the grid is pretty cheap now - about 3 years of electricity bills. (Sydney Australia, also about 33 c/KWHr) We have had about 2 days per year without power due to grid maintenance.
Am i looking at a mini me lol add some glasses and you guys are twins 😂
*_There Will Be Mustaches._*
Hahahaha
The reason people spend serious money for backup generators to assure reliable power for their homes and businesses is that the value having power to use greatly outweighs the cost of buying power off the grid. Have you ever heard anyone who lost power to their home for a couple of days say, "on the otherhand, being off the grid for a couple of days will save me $10 or $15 on this month's electric bill"?
The retail price of grid-based electricity in California is getting close to the break-even price for self generation with a home diesel generator unit. It costs $0.25 to $0.30 per kilowatt-hour in fuel costs to run a home unit on off-road diesel fuel.
Man, he was on one. That was intense! 👏
Mark is the best. He’s got some good master classes on this channel
In terms of California's institutional insanity over energy, I agree with Mark Nelson's well thought out and delivered thoughts on the topic. If it takes Mark an hour to make the case to interested listeners, what chance of communication success do we have in a population that gets its news from social media? This is a complicated topic. The legislature is debating another public reaction bandaid price fix at the moment. I've taken the affluent resident's exit, installing a small NEM 3 PV with battery. I think the long answer is a battery solution that is yet to come. There are no doubt bright minds noodling new idea right now.
The ocean where Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is located is where warm and cold ocean currents meet. The ocean tempature here swings massively here depending on changing currents and weather patterns. The ocean life here is adapted to these wide swings in water tempatures with both cold and warm water organisms being present in this area. The amount of heat and cold exchanging here is several thousand times the heat outputted by the nuclear plant. Because of this the DCNPP has essentially no effect on the ocean life in the area.
27:02 27:14 27:16 Energy-conservation is the single greatest threat to future generations.
The uk mastered Nuclear/coal storage in the 70's-80's 1-2M homes were heated by heating up a storage heater, a box of bricks and a water tank, over night on cheap power to release and use all day long.
Great episode!! Do you have on your radar an episode on the environmental impacts of Uranium mining? Since there are a lot of restarts happening, seems like it would be timely - keep up the great work!
Mark Nelson is a steam train of a conversationalist! Love the content though, thanks guys.
WHY WOULD THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY DO THIS?
Sorry, Californians were lied to, it's frustrating.
San Onofre producing @ $30 to $40/MWhr. FML. My parents are paying $400/MWhr in Los Angeles, and in the summer months, consume 3 MWhr. That's a 4 figure electric bill. Tragic
Source: My parents paid a ~$1,200 electric bill in August 2023, though the rates were a little lower than 400/MWhr, and they used slightly more than 3MWhr
Damn! I learned something. Thanks
Green energy WILL BE nuclear. There is no other green base load electricity. Duh.
There's a new geothermal energy approach that uses a new drilling technique that makes geothermal practical anywhere, not just in volcanic areas because it makes drilling bore holes 10 to 15 miles into the Earth possible to tap the natural heat at that depth. Look up: new geothermal electricity project Utah. It means geothermal power plants that deliver renewable energy 24/7 can be built in areas that used to be coal or natural gas plants and connect to the grid.
This one gets it.
@@johncoviello8570cost per kilowatt hour? Come back when you have hundreds of years of grid scale generator hours
@@oo-bb4qs We will know soon enough. The Google geothermal power plant is already up and running in Nevada. There are plans for at least three more in the US. It is a relatively cheap source of energy since it doesn’t rely on any fuel, it draws heat energy from deep in the Earth. The biggest cost is drilling the boreholes. It could definitely be used as base power since geothermal doesn’t depend on the weather or any other surface conditions. The plant could run 24/7. These new geothermal power plants could be built at the location of abandoned power plants to save even more money, since those plants already have the transmission lines to reach people in populated areas.
@@johncoviello8570 the anti nuclear propaganda and regulation has been so intense people will really dig a 10 mile deep borehole just to avoid having to store harmless dry casks..
Hilariously that borehole tech would completely solve geologic storage of nuclear waste and there’s no “we’ll see” about any of it.
Net metering in California hasn’t paid retail back to the residential solar owner since 2011. I get a wholesale rate of $0.02 to $0.04 per KWh
In CA and we managed to get approved for NEM 2.0. Though we have not yet installed the solar system. At tier 3 we have paid $0.53 per kWh. If we only get paid back what you state that would hardly make it worthwhile.
Please tell me the up sides and downsides of Variable pricing on the rooftop solar folks. Can we incentivize them to provide their energy to the grid when it actually is needed? Is it ok if they have a battery?
In the eastern half of Texas you get the cheap industrial power by buying your own generating equipment and buy the gas and then you generate and don’t sell to anyone. The regulators will leave you alone.
Super slanted conversation, but some great points raised.
Yeah it’s definitely pro nuclear, but there is no media without a slant.
I know this is just a podcast but it would be good to get more figures on how much the costs have gone up. Doesn't look too bad to me from what I can see online.
Semantics/economics - A single contract is definitely not a market. Bring on dynamically priced/smart grid.
Like ERCOT?
Texas Feb 2021, blizzard plus sub-zero temps for about 2 weeks.
Prices rose from the typical $50/MWh to $9,000/MWh.
But, y'know dynamic pricing didn't bring much power onto the grid!
Both demand and supply are inelastic, which means dynamic prices are an insane idea. (inelastic means that demand isn't really driven by price - its driven more by things like the World Cup/Superbowl/weather; ditto the supply - sure I'd love to take advantage of the 9,000/MWh price, but since it takes 2-3 years to build a small powerplant, it isn't even worth beginning to plan out for a 2 week cold snap, let alone trying to build one; ditto laying in a new transmission line from a neighboring geography).
I have net metering solar and a generator. Even with 12kw solar my electric bill is about $200 month. (Tru up is $2400)
Yeah and that’s with a lot of your costs being subsidized by non solar owners!
Won’t the growth of grid scale batteries balance the grid flow? BTW California always was dependent on importing electricity.
> Won’t the growth of grid scale batteries balance the grid flow?
Sure. However, not enough. The scale is much larger and over longer periods of time than what current batteries can support.
Also, batteries have a low return-on-assets; you can build out batteries to deal with the scale/time, but they mostly sit idle, because you aren't charging/discharging to deal with the average scenario, but the extreme scenario.
Think about a stadium, if we built it for the average attendance, we would build 1 seat (because the stadium is literally empty most of the time). However, we don't build it for the average attendance, or even the average game-day attendance; we build stadiums for PEAK game-day attendance!
Spending trillions on grid level lithium ion batteries is A solution. It’s not a great solution, considering my laptop uses the same technology and 6 years later is useless unless plugged into the grid! 😂
Dependent is not the right word. You import power when it is less expensive than producing it locally. The California Public Utilities Commission also wants an economical and reliable power supply for the state.
@@philipdamask2279 > You import power when it is less expensive than producing it locally
You are putting the cart before the horse. You don't purchase and import power because it is cheap, you do so because you need to - hopefully obtaining the lowest cost electricity.
We can see this in Quebec and Germany.
Quebec's neighbors found themselves in an dire situation a few winters ago - reservoirs were down and demand was high. Quebec, quite rightly, shut off the neighbors and supplied their own citizens first. So, the neighbors, not having power - cheap or dear - had brownouts/blackouts.
Germany has much more expensive electricity than its neighbors. One reason is that intermittent wind/solar comes on all at once. So, with lots of wind power the price drops and Germany exports. When the wind dies down, the price rises and Germany imports. Buy high sell low - not a great formula.
So, you have a great theory there (to import when prices are low) it just doesn't work in practice - because not only is the demand inelastic, the supply is also.
Electricity isn't this magic stuff that just comes out of wall sockets.
Does Diablo NPP have a tsunami barrier?
Yes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
"The elevation of the Fukushima site is approximately 20 feet (6.1 m) above sea level, while Diablo Canyon sits on a bluff 85 feet (26 m) above sea level."
Yeah otherwise NIMBYs would complain about that too.
Finally!
He’s right about Powerwall 3
Inshallah generation. What a fabulous phrase!
So if I’m hearing this right, the problem in California was not the tech/renewable mandate; it was the ridiculously inefficient and disconnected from really bureaucracy and regulation and government commissions.
My conclusion: the grid/distribution should be govt/public owned. Just like highway/roads. And private business uses those public roads to provide the best products and services. Similarly, all the power generators can be private and regulated. They can compete to provide the cheapest energy.
Residencial KWH pricing ranges from $0.30 to $0.55 per Kwh.
I was about to write a comment saying - so is California the Germany of the USA then?
I thought naah, it's way too insulting - then Marc did say it! :)
Haha right? Agreed and rip
If Cali had 1000 small molten salt thorium reactors of 300megawatts it's cost per megawat would be 1/2 to 1/4 as much as currently. AND FOR MANY YEARS. The Cali situation is nearing an inability to correct it's power sit-rep. Especially by over-reliance on low power density construction.
well, they do not exist and those that did exist did not work well. So. back to the real world.
@@philtimmons722 I've heard over and over that the molten salt experiment at Oak Ridge worked very well. I remember interviews with the folks that actually ran the experiment.
Multi GW battery energy storage facilities would take the bumps out of the highs and lows. Even with nuclear, they would be a stabilizer.
the cost of energy needs to go up most everywhere around the world - we have been susidizing it for too long- and now we have climate change and a poorly designed city, buildings and habbits due to it. now we need to tax all forms of pollution and become Very energy efficient- thus use less energy!
I wish I could grow a proper ‘stache 😢
Maybe they can share their routine later
Please apply the logic of the subsidy / economic distortion of the electricity grid to the vastly greater car subsidy. Choose Delft not Detroit.
Interesting watching the two world (Europe vs USA) bash each others model's of 'failure'. 'Europe' isn't a single entity any more that the States of America are ('California'?) are a single entity. Yes the grids are within the two regions are interconnected, but are regulated by their respective states/nations with a range of coordination measures.
The laws of thermodynamics haven't changed: You can't win; the best you can do is draw; the game is rigged, you can't get out of the game.
It's still good CPD ;-)
Another form of base electricity that should be pursued is the new geothermal energy using a drilling technology that can get down to 10 to 15 miles below the earth’s surface where it is warm enough to make geothermal practical just about anywhere. Google is built a test new geothermal plant in Nevada that’s up and running.
That well is less than 1.5 miles deep.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
This citation shows how little research johncoviello8570 has done.
Brostache bois broing out on the grid
The way we like it
Not up to the usual standards - very high bar. I’ve suggested before - and particularly needed here - this is a particularly messy topic - and screams for some structure - best achieved by some advance work between the two of you about what will be covered, in what order, and how it all ties together, and as y’all have done many times before, perhaps itemize loose threads that will be addressed in future sessions.
Some say nuclear electricity for every country.
80% of the world's population is in dictatorships.
Dictators love nuclear industries 😮
Nuclear electricity to fill EVs, but with EVs big batteries we DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY.
Fossil fuels were complicated and a mystery until they were not.
Batteries and rooftop solar PV are getting dirt cheap.
I do many a disservice by being gentle about their stupid ideas.
The grid is insanely expensive and uneconomic beyond what we have.
All electricity users will have to make most electricity at home and store at home.
Or in their work building.
In climate extreme the energy in the atmosphere will explode.
> All electricity users will have to make most electricity at home and store at home.
Or in their work building.
Thus trading in the flexibility, economies of scale, and division of labor advantages of a grid, for rigid, high-asset low-value, jacks-of-all-trades-master-of-none shoddy single point generation.
@@factnotfiction5915 some people waste their space.
Why is my laptop battery useless after 6 years and how is this different from your grid level battery that costs trillions of dollars?
@microburn
Back off a little.
The EV battery management includes liquid temperature management and is showing very little battery degradation.
Even battery recycling operations are finding fewer EV batteries available.
Compared to their business projections.
When Australia 20 million vehicles are EVs, then the real savings will be part of the economy.
Mark Nelson is your son 😂
Nah it’s not nepotism it’s a meeting of the mustache
You guys need more views. I don't normally recommend it, but, get some Bikini Girls in those thumbnails. *Nuclear* *Bikini* *Babes* 🇨🇦 🍻 🇺🇸.
*EXCELLENT* *CHANNEL* *DOC*
I'd go as far to say that the new microwave drilling technique that makes geothermal energy possible anywhere on Earth regardless of volcanic activity would be the final slayer of nuclear power. Geothermal energy can produce electricity 24/7 no matter what's happening on the surface of Earth. It's coming and it's going to be cheap (no fuel, no waste). Look up this article for details: New Geothermal Energy Drilling Technology Could Save Humans From Additional Global Warming
California has massive geothermal potential. Like around the Salton Sea area a two giga watt plant is being developed. Another interesting development is the extraction of lithium and other materials from the hot brine being brought up. The amount of Li being rather staggering, enough for millions of electric cars. This geo power having the ability to be dispatchable to making up for the intermittency of of other renewables sources of electricity.
Let us know when there's proof-of-concept.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Proof of concept? Google just completed a new geothermal plant in the Nevada desert last fall. It’s way beyond any initial stage. More to come. Next one is being built in Nevada.
@@johncoviello8570 It needs to be tested for years before you get all excited. There were a lot of geothermal plants that had to be abandoned in the past. They worked for a number of years and petered out.
It is what comes up with the steam or brine that causes economic problems for geothermal plants. And yes geothermal plants normally face the problem of depleting the heat source.
Mark really really really loves nuclear. whatever saves the npp may that be bitcoin, evs or ai, whatever increases load. I thought we liked nuclear because it is the only solution to global warming. i at least do.
politics and energy generation is wrought with drama and intrigue
Politics need to stay out of it when possible, Coal is no longer competitive with natural Gas. Kentucky GOP are trying to force coal on the grid. Keep politics out of the grid.
Keeps forgetting pumped hydro........
Nuclear plants use them, why not solar/wind?
“Hate to say this but… [California’s policy] is worse than Germany” - brutal comparison on the podcast
Easy to see that this guest is paid to support the old obsolete concept of energy supply being the exclusive right of "regulated" monopolies, who ALWAYS hate any real market forces.
Their problem now is that the supposed "infallible" regulators failed to predict the future where PV generation is gotten so cheap it completely undercuts the promises regulators made to generators in the past.
The US is WAY BEHIND the world in refusing to separate the bill for distribution from the bill for generation. This makes no sense, and makes "$/mwhr" comparisons impossible, a condition he/they clearly want.
#1 - Outstanding guest
# 2 - First rate interviewer...
Comment: Europe is an anachronism - a dangerous one. These countries haven's changed their standard operating procedures in 2+ millennia : rule by an ultra-privileged elite totally indifferent to the interests of the plebes (except the rare occasions when they set Paris or Berlin on fire). We see this today in energy / socioeconomic policy - and far more alarming - their eagerness tripping into a another world war adventure. As for Cali, the state is way too damn large to function effectively; the average CA resident when they think about Sacramento probably picture in their minds a drive-through interchange on the way to Tahoe. Like Europe, special interest political hacks end up calling the shots, naturally.
""Europe" - lol
Mark 4TW
Is that a fake mustache?
California is really relying solar and wind but California can if they but more geothermal battery's wind solar small nuclear power and natural gas for back up
Fossil fueled back up makes a lot of sense for a very short time.
The capitalist Industrial Era has been built on relatively cheap, plentiful, and technologically simple commodities and technologies, sort of a perfect serendipitous storm that really isn't the norm in history. But now we have two foundational commodities, oil and coal, that must go, no further debate. But capitalism cannot run on increasingly expensive base resources. It sends deadly cost shock waves up through the stack. So yes, when we start fooling around with foundational components of capitalist industrialism, lots of vibration in bad positive feedback.
It's true
Very Good looking men
See nerds are funny 😊
The forest fires half PGE cause it and miss management of the forest were going have step in and take of the forest
Grid electricity is stupidly expensive.
Focus on grids
More grid capacity more fixed costs.
Get rid of the grid.
have a packet-switched grid rather than a circuit-switched one
@erkinalp Actually, I can easily visualise the EVs big battery being the packet of electricity energy.
Topping up all day and supplying as peak demands sweep through the national electrical grid.
For example, a cloud cover moves across many rooftop solar PV systems and the out put drops.
Or at night, the normal quiet time, EV battery is supplying.
If you do the maths of total numbers of EVs, big batteries, and daily electricity demand, it is all within the workable possibilities.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 Yes, just take the wheels off of the EVs and use them as batteries.
@Billy97ify Hahaha 😆
Actually, everyone talks about how many hours a day a generator works, its utility factor, and the nuclear promoters say it has the highest utility factor. If you only build base load capacity.
Nuclear is expensive to turn off or turn down to lower levels of supply.
In the USA, 300 million vehicles are a $10TRILLION asset with 300 million big batteries parked 23hrs every day.
The modern EV battery with liquid temperature controlled battery management system shows extremely long lifetime durability.
To claim high utility as the criteria means 300 million vehicles, big batteries must be used 24hrs daily.
Nuclear is a waste of resources.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 What are you trying to say? Use EV batteries for the grid? Then they cant be used for driving. You can't drive if you just discharged your battery into the grid. For driving you need to keep the battery charged.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Turns into babbling nonsense by 44:00. And the host just sits there bobble-heading the nonsense without (maybe not even understanding) even challenging the nonsense.
Over the episodes the tone is becoming more and more aggressive towards electricity markets and it is a bit like negating math or physics. The line of thinking of "nuclear can only thrive in an obscure vertically integrated competionless electricity sector" is a bit laughable as it shows that it is not economically viable and you can only make it happen when you indirectly subsidise it. High penetration nuclear cannibalises the economics of those nuclear plants like no other due to its high CAPEX.
Look, I am a fan of nuclear but have also studied electricity markets and there is no way around it, we do not have a single reliable price point that indicates that building new nuclear is cheaper than adding renewables, even with all of its intermittency flaws.
Let's not negate the fundamental math and economic behaviours behind electricity markets.
They are arguing that electricity is a service, not a tradeable good.
> the tone is becoming more and more aggressive towards electricity markets and it is a bit like negating math or physics.
However, this is mostly a factor of how the 'market' is set up.
In the US and most of the West, the market hasn't priced intermittent electricity differently the dispatchable electricity - so sure, it "doesn't work", but that could also be stated as "it won't work because it hasn't in the past and we don't want to change".
The current 'market' is designed to be expansive and equate energy generation with success, but were we to design the market to meet demand load reliably, we would have different incentives and a market more favorable to nuclear finance.
@@lukacsnemeth1652 Electricity is a tradeable good as any other, with the particularity that storage is very difficult. That is why you need to have suitable market that models this characteristic. Ignoring this and treating it like a service only will lead you to an inefficient allocation of welfare as you have limited information about the demand or supply.
@@factnotfiction5915Most of the markets in western countries have several layers to cope with the intermittency of renewables. You have the main day-ahead energy market, and as you get closer to the time horizon you have intra-day markets, regulation markets, ancillary markets and ultimately restrictions set by the PSO/TSO. These are supposed to bring in the revenue and signal the need for additional capacity on top of the inflexible renewable and btw, nuclear. The thing is, with low marginal price sources like nuclear, wind, solar or hydro, it is ultimately scarcity pricing is what dictates the demand for additional capacity and only happens when you push the system.
What Mark is proposing here is bundling the generators, distributors, TSO and PSO in one and getting rid of any market driven pricing information.
Dankspain you got a lot of Lazard LCOE all over your analysis and it shows! Ignoring the time value of electricity makes your analysis bad, it doesn’t make the value 0