Max8806’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Gene good point, I would just add that only nuc and coal run at night because demand is lower - if demand were higher we would still run the gas because its dispatchable, just not "baseload" because the marginal cost is so high. But you hit on a good point, which is that greens conflate stopping global warming with killing nuclear.On SolarReserve's 24/7 solar power plant posted 6 days, 12 hours ago 97 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bob: I never said there was no use for storage purely to arbitrage offpeak power over to sell at peak, but this article is about doing the exact opposite. You are right that many systems see a second peak around 7 or 8pm when everyone is home with the tv/ac/oven/whatever on, but the title of the post is 'solar reserve's 24/7 solar power plant,' which is another thing entirely. ChristopherSJ: There are not millions and millions of electric vehicles charging at people's homes. It may or may not happen in the future, who knows maybe advancements in prius and others keep hybrids a few thousand dollars cheaper and sufficiently fuel efficient to keep EV's a niche market. But regardless, I find it extremely unlikely that power will ever be worth more at 2am than 2pm. After all, you could charge your EV at work at 2pm as well. People would presumably do it whenever its cheapest, but I still think its going to be a long time until the price of electricity is independent of time-of-day. And until then, power will be worth more during the day than night.On SolarReserve's 24/7 solar power plant posted 1 week, 2 days ago 97 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Attempting to reduce carbon by subsidizing clean energy (instead of pricing the carbon pollution) can get you to a "correct"(ish) price differential between clean and dirty energy, but then you've still distorted the price differential between energy and all other goods. So attempting to reduce carbon primarily through subsidizing clean energy as opposed to pricing carbon inhibits what ought to be cost-effective efficiency and conservation.On To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon posted 1 week, 2 days ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I don't get how solar power that produces power at night would be the holy grail for solar. Power is worth more during the day, so even if that storage is 100% efficient, it's still not worth doing. On the storage side, all solar needs is reasonably efficient short-term storage so that they can provide a fairly predictable/dispatchable amount of power, without having to cut output suddenly and sharply if it gets cloudy for a bit. That would allow it to participate in capacity and Ancillary Services markets as well as energy. The real holy grail of solar is bringing the cost of energy down so that it doesn't need $4 of subsidies for every $1 in revenue from selling electricity.On SolarReserve's 24/7 solar power plant posted 1 week, 2 days ago 97 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Amory, you've now repeated a couple claims here in the comments that really ought to be substantiated by some numbers and sources to be taken seriously. I looked through your technical paper attached to try and find more support on these particulars and did not find any, though admittedly I might have missed something. You've been impressively responsive so far, maybe you can clear these up. First, you've said here (and in the technical paper) that 2005 EPAct nuclear subsidies exceed the full capital cost of building a plant. I personally cannot fathom how you make the numbers work for that one, unless you count the value of loan guarantees as just grants. Or perhaps you're counting Price-Anderson as some sort of infinite subsidy--I've seen that claim on grist before-- despite the fact that it imposes on the industry a duty to maintain around $9Billion in pooled liability coverage, and has never imposed upon the public purse (even after TMI). So perhaps you could give a clearer accounting of the missing several billion dollars. Second, and related, is your claim that subsidies for nuclear are greater than for renewables, even greater than PV according to your technical paper. Just a little back of the envelope arithmetic here: a 1.2GW nuclear reactor with a 90% capacity factor would produce about 9,461 Million KWh's in a year. (365 days * 24 hours * 1.2Million KW * .9 Capacity Factor). If you offered nuclear a $0.30/kwh tariff for power, which is not even particularly generous by PV FIT standards, that nuclear plant would rake in over $2.8 Billion (with a 'B') in just the very first year of operation! How expensive would you have to figure the plant is for those numbers not to sound like a good investment? So I think its hard to argue that nuclear gets this level, or more, government support. On the EIA report on government subsidies, you're right it was commissioned by Lamar Alexander, but I've read the analysis request letter and its not stacked to get predetermined answers at all. I believe what you are referring to is the request specifically for "subsidy per kwh," but that's only an unfair framing if you don't ask "how many tomatoes" to someone who offers to sell you "tomatoes" for $10. Wouldn't you ask how many tomatoes? I would. And while it doesn't include historical spending on R&D, that seems to have had an incredible social return. While I certainly would be the last one to ignore the role of market liberalization and utility divestiture in increasing nuclear capacity factors, its hard to imagine all that R&D didn't help. And the knowledge about how plant components hold up to significant radiation exposure, simulating years/decades in a reactor, have certainly contributed to the NRC's ability to extend licenses an additional 20 years. So while "evil, corporate" nuclear subsidies overwhelmingly go to the broad-based social good of public R&D, "altruistic" renewables insist on having their subsidies paid personally, in cash and upfront for each specific installation. Perhaps this is why we get so many fewer kwh's out of our public renewables subsidy dollars. I think if we're honest nuclear takes its subsidies in a much more socially welfare-enhancing form. Finally, just a general remark about your refrain that nuclear gets no "private capital investment" while renewables and micropower are killing it in the global marketplace. Obviously Japan, Korea, Russia and parts of Europe never stopped building nuclear power plants, and yet you still feel confident arguing wherever these investments crop up its just because of government support. But I'm pretty sure you don't take all the renewables that get super-high FIT's out of your database. So to me at least, I've always found it difficult to take your proclamations seriously because it seems like an awful double standard. There's no point in drumming up this huge distinction you like to draw in whether capital is "private" or "at-risk" if its offered a tariff at 3-4 times the market rate.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses