121 Comments
author

But coal plants are currently operating after being in service for 50 -60 years and with refurbishment, they could last much longer. I also think there is a much better use case for recycling nuclear fuel than wind turbine blades.

Expand full comment

The Nuclear Waste Act of 1986 imposed a 0.1¢/kWh fee on nuclear power plants. After wasting $8 billion on Yucca Mountain (the DoE estimates we'd need eight of them), the fund stands at $42 billion. Courts ended the fee when utilities pointed out that DoE was not taking custody of spent fuel, which the act required them to do. Jimmuh Cahtuh terminated spent fuel processing using the argument that if USA didn't do it, then nobody else would build nuclear weapons. Pakistan, North Korea and Iran were apparently not on the memo's distribution list. But PUREX is the wrong way to do it anyway. So far, the best proven way is pyroelectric processing developed at Argonne and Idaho National Laboratories. EBR-II was only 20 MWe, and it's associated fuel cycle facility was sized to handle that, but they proved it works. Then the Cliton administration terminated the research program and destroyed the reactor that Nobel Physics Laureate Hans Bethe described as "the best research reactor ever built," at more cost than finishing the research project and mothballing the reactor. When this was pointed out to Slick Willie's science "advisor," the vile charlatan Frank von Hipple, he said "I know, it's a symbol. It has to go." An engineering analysis of a pilot-scale 400 tonne per year pyroelectric plant puts the cost -- capital amortization plus operations -- at 0.085¢/kWh. But the Nuclear Waste Act explicitly forbids any of its funds to be used for spent fuel processing. That needs to be revised.

The contribution of the cost of uranium, as it comes out of the ground, to the wholesale price of electricity is 0.001¢/kWh, the origin of Lewis Strauss's "too cheap to meter" quip. He had in mind a fixed fee (not no fee) to cover capital amortization plus operations, kind of like the fixed fee in your property tax to cover sewers and storm drains. After processing fuel contributes 0.5¢/kWh to the wholesale price of electricity from nuclear power plants. Operations cost is typically 1.5-2.0 ¢/kWh. The rest is capital amortization. Fully amortized plants, mostly the ones being shut down in the northeast, are putting electricity on the grid for 2.5-3.0 ¢/kWh -- not quite "too cheap to meter" but much less than the 35¢/kWh retail price in California.

Expand full comment
Aug 24Liked by Isaac Orr

Nice article guys. I have a couple of quibbles. In the older solar farms in CA they are replacing panels at 10-12 years due to degradation, and friendly repowering subsidies. The farms sign contracts for a specific amount of power and as degradation sets in they fall short. There is no way out of the contract which can be 30 years, so they repower or breach and shut down. They can’t just add more as the increased short circuit current threatens the surrounding grid. The solar farm owners are all LLCs owned by LLCs owned by LLCs so they can just walk away, which they will do if the subsidies stop.

Even if you install 3500 MW of wind and solar it won’t replace the 1000MW coal plant without an unaffordable array of batteries. When you consider efficiencies (70% for grid scale batteries) you’d need at least 5000 MW. This of course doesn’t include long term storage, because it hasn’t been invented yet, so until it is you need to keep the coal plant on standby.

Expand full comment

My calculations shown at http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Worse.html, using thirteen years of real data for California (and somwehat less for other areas), are that 1,000-2,000 watt hours of backup are needed per watt of average demand. I got similar results for Texas, USA as a whole, Denmark, Germany, and EU as a whole. I tried to analyze Australia but AEMO data are a mess, and they don't respond to requests for help understanding them. Using Simon Michaux's analyses of battery materials and mineral availability, I calculated that batteries for USA alone for grid backup plus an all-electric transportation fleet would require 1.6 times more copper, thirteen times more nickel, and forty times more cobalt than are known to exist in recoverable forms. And the cost for battery backup of an all-renewable grid would be only about three times total USA GDP every year -- forever -- before figuring in transportation, installation, maintenance, battery inefficiency, decommissioning, destruction, and disposal. Add in those expenses and the cost is closer to thirty times total USA GDP -- every year -- forever.

Details and more in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" A comprehensive end-to-end life-cycle system-engineering analysis of the entire energy landscape. Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so you can verify I didn't just make up stuff.

Expand full comment

So-called renewables like weather-dependent wind and solar are not only short lifespan and non-recyclable, they are expensive to build and integrate, heavily resource-depleting, inefficient and unreliable. The tragedy is that there is no need whatsoever to attempt to reduce CO2 emissions because atmospheric CO2 is already “saturated”, which means even a doubling of its concentration from the present level will cause negligible global warming. The only reason they push ahead with these totally inappropriate technologies is because their ulterior purpose is to wreck the economy, deindustrialise, create deliberate food shortages and limit the population.

Expand full comment

What is driving purchasing solar and wind generation? taxpayer-funded subsidy seekers are part of the problem. Here's one example of a well-heeled elite who admitted circa 2014 he is on the gravy train at taxpayer expense. (Buffett's father was a four-term U.S. Representative from Nebraska.) Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett explained the rationale for solar and wind generation in 2014:

"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."

"Big Wind's Bogus Subsidies - Giving tax credits to the wind energy industry is a waste of time and money."

By Nancy Pfotenhauer, Contributor | May 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m US News & World Report

https://tinyurl.com/Buffett-Wind-Scam

Expand full comment

Follow the money. Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome, right. Charlie Munger said that often. Uncle Warren is in on the scam.

Expand full comment

Yes. The late Charles Munger was Warren Buffet's right-hand man. He knew.

Expand full comment

T. Boone Pickens built wind parks atop his gas fields, not to sell electricity but to get the subsidies, and to sell gas to the backup generators. Open-cycle gas turbine plants require twice as much gas as combined cycle plants per kWh, so building wind parks plus open-cycle backup increases CO2 emissions compared to just building closed-cycle plants. Environists (no mental in the middle) never do system analyses.

Expand full comment

Yes, I have yet to see a refutation of Happer and others' explanation of spectrum saturation. Yesterday, someone pointed me to A Royal Society page which supposedly refuted the argument. It actually agreed that the warming effect of CO2 has declined and will continue to decline. It claimed only that there is still *some* room for further saturation (which Happer agrees with) but failed to put any numbers on it. Happer shows that the warming effect has already diminished greatly and is trivial going forward. That's too bad since the planet is too cold compared to optimal conditions.

Expand full comment

Agreed 💯

There’s also the conversation with the planet, which will thank us for releasing all that sequestered carbon, enabling it to stay green for another couple of hundred million years. Of all the nonsense we have to tolerate from the climate change mob, the most grotesque by far is that carbon is a pollutant. Like a lot of things today, just couldn’t make it up.

Expand full comment

NASA data show that the surface area of some green substances that have the same spectral properties as plants is increasing at the rate of 2.7 football fields per second.

150 million years ago, CO2 concentration was 2,500 ppm. It declined to 250 ppm in 1750. Where was it going? Marine plants and creatures combine it with calcium to make bones and teeth and armor. When they die, they sink to the bottoms of the oceans and become permanent limestone and chalk.

Concentration became as low as 180 ppm during the last six ice ages. When it falls below 150 ppm, plants start to die (this has been verified in sealed greenhouses), and then so does everything else except bacteria and viruses, and maybe some fungi.

Fortunately, humanity intervened in the form of the Industrial Age to increase concentration to 415 ppm, postponing Gaia's suicide from eight million years until about eighteen million years (not hundreds of millions). If we care about long-term life on Earth, we should be burning coal and making cement as fast as we can. But the death cults insist otherwise.

Expand full comment

Back when the late Stephen Schneider was an acolyte in the Coming Ice Age cult, he and S. Ichtiaque Rasool calculated, and reported in "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate," Science, 173(3992):138–141, July 9 1971, that EVERY doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases average temperature by 0.76°C. That is, no matter how much coal we burn, we can't prevent the coming ice age. Svante Arrhenius knew this logarithmic relationship (but with the wrong value) in 1896.

After he became the high priest of the Global Warming cult, Schneider admitted in a 1989 interview with Detroit News "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. . . . So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

He tried to explain this away, claiming that what he said was selectively edited. His more-complete statement in a Discover Magazine interview (that is no longer available in their archive) included a remark about a “double ethical bind.” Within one paragraph he said both “we have to include all doubts” and “we have to ... make little mention of any doubts.” That proves he wasn’t a real scientist.

Expand full comment
Aug 24Liked by Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling

Brilliant insights. Love the term "disposable" instead of "renewable". The power of the sun and the wind may be renewable in the sense of not being limited by a finite supply like oil, but the actual components of wind and solar power generation installations are certainly not renewable. So "renewable" is a term used by those with blinders on - they only see what they want to see.

Expand full comment
Aug 25Liked by Isaac Orr

Yes I think this is the narrative that needs to change. The FUEL of the wind and the sun may be “renewable” in the sense that it s effectively infinite by mankind’s timeline and certainly compared to the fuel of hydrocarbons in the earth’s crust. Likewise the fuel of nuclear fission should also be considered “renewable” if proximity to an infinite storage of potential energy is the only criteria for the term.

What is distinctly NOT RENEWABLE about wind and solar and only marginally better about hydrocarbons and nuclear, is the process to convert potential energy from the fuel source into energy for generating work.

Not enough is done to explain those trade-offs to the masses before fleecing them for subsidies.

Expand full comment

Good point.

Expand full comment

But they went to so much trouble and spent so much money to pick out the term "renewable" and to also assure that the definition would quite certainly exclude nuclear at the Kyoto conference, according to a representative from Shell.

Expand full comment
Aug 24Liked by Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling

I expect that the lifetimes of thermal generation used to balance wind and solar will end up shortened due to increased ramping up and down. Thermal fatigue wears out mechanical parts!

Expand full comment

Yes, intermittents make fossil fuels less efficient. They need to burn fuel to ramp up to running temperatures. They belch out carbon and pollution while they do so, but do not generate electricity during that time.

Expand full comment

That’s a great point that doesn’t get attention. Rotating machines prefer equilibrium run status, and the asynchronous manner they’re being abused will degrade their longevity.

Expand full comment

I've seen this point mentioned many times, but never in the mainstream media.

Expand full comment
Aug 24·edited Aug 24Liked by Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling

Great work, gents. This mechanical engineer knows solar and wind = cost/benefit = infinity.

It is amazing how the 'energy' companies have stolen billions from taxpayers without recompense.

Worse, I live 40 miles northeast of the Cities and they are now paying our beloved farmers more to cover their fertile lands with toxic panels; Cadmium was outlawed years ago in industry.

Expand full comment

"Single use plastic" is a great comparison - particularly when thinking about the recent failure of the Nantucket Wind blade. Lazard's LCOE+ is showing a better picture of the large longer-term costs of solar and wind, particularly when the cost of storage is included..

https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf "Nuclear" is mentioned 25 times. The cost to firm intermittency is shown on page 15 of 48. Lazard acknowledges the importance of baseload generation. Nuclear power contributes the greatest amount of necessary synchronous grid inertia (SGI.) However, SGI is not mentioned in the Lazard LCOE+ analysis.. See https://greennuke.substack.com/p/why-is-grid-inertia-important for an introduction. (The article comments provide additional details. )

Expand full comment

The better I understand power generation, the less I trust the work of Lazard. If wind and solar are "single use plastic," Lazard's estimates of LCOE are a "single use metric"

Expand full comment

Well, given that Lazard's LCOE numbers were lies for more than a decade, distrust is warranted.

Expand full comment

At one point Lazard was very careful to state that LCOE numbers should not be used to compare solar/wind with other energy sources. They also displayed them on separate graphs. Then they abandoned the disclaimers and put them on the same graphic.

Their media mentions soared…

Expand full comment

An interesting perspective. But don’t you need to compare with the costs of dismantling nuclear stations and dealing with nuclear waste for centuries, coal mining slag heaps, gas drilling platforms etc?

Expand full comment
author

Hi Dave, this analysis doesn’t look at the cost of decommissioning any of the power stations, it’s just the cost to build, maintain or repower existing facilities.

Expand full comment

Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plant decommissioning costs are paid for by assessing a small charge for each kilowatt-hour generated. Per NRC rules, those funds are held in a trust account for eventual plant decommissioning. ....And what you call nuclear waste is extremely valuable. Only about 5% of the energy in the fuel has been used. France is reprocessing its spent nuclear fuel to improve the efficiency of the nuclear fuel cycle - and reduce the eventual waste volume. The eventual fate of the material that can't be utilized will be deep storage in stable rock.

Expand full comment

And it's worth pointing out that it is miniscule compared to the size of wind/solor graveyards. In terms of mining, I would bet the uranium mining safety and environmental factors are far better than those for rare earth minerals used in solar/batteries.

Expand full comment

...and James, the mining of uranium will be much less needed if the spent nuclear fuel we already have sitting in dry storage casks is re-used, as mentioned by Gene Nelson.

Expand full comment

True. Unless the quality of the uranium deposit is really high, like some mines in Canada, uranium is now extracted from subterranean deposits via "in-situ leaching." which minimizes environmental degradation and risk to miners. The same cannot be said for cobalt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Here's a 2024 Deutsche Welle article: https://www.dw.com/en/drc-struggles-to-make-cobalt-mining-more-transparent/a-68610784 Child labor and unsafe mines are a lethal combination in a nation that supplies about 50% of the world's supply of cobalt.

Expand full comment

USA has about a million tonnes of future fuel in the form of spent fuel and depleted uranium. In fast-neutron breeder reactors, that could power an all-electric all-nuclear American energy economy with 1,700 GWe average appetite for more than 500 years without mining, milling, refining, enriching, or importing one new gram of uranium. Maybe within 500 years we can figure out how to make fusion work -- but don't hold your breath waiting for that.

Expand full comment

Fission products, the "can't be utilized" part of spent fuels, are generated at the rate of about one tonne per GWe-yr. Among those, 9.26% -- caesium and strontium -- require custody for 300 years -- not the 300,000 years required for the unused-fuel part. Half the rest are innocuous before thirty years, and the remainder aren't even radioactive -- but some such as rhodium and palladium are extremely valuable: up to $500/gram.

Activists insist an all-electric American economy would have a 1,700 GWe appetite (Jacobson et al estimate a bit less). None of these older estimates account for the AI explosion. Assuming that number, an all-electric all-nuclear American energy economy would generate nine cement-mixer loads of caesium and strontium per year. We can handle that. Put them into hastalloy "salt divers" and drop them into six-kilometer deep salt domes in Louisiana, where they'll sink to the bottom and become innocuous barium and zirconium long before the hastalloy is corroded by the salt.

Expand full comment

Good point, but my guess is that natural gas easily wins in this cost comparison as well. Assuming that we are talking about shale gas, the pads are actually quite small in comparison. Once you move all the transportable equipment, you are left with a small parking lot. It is probably left to the landowner in the contract whether they want keep the parking lot or have it destroyed. My guess most would want to keep the parking lot for a potential revenue source later.

Either way, I doubt that it is a major expenditure compared to the other energy sources.

https://www.aogr.com/magazine/cover-story/leading-operators-improve-efficiency-and-effectiveness-of-multiwell-pad-ope

Expand full comment

Sure, unless and until the externality of carbon emission effects are factored in. A hefty enough carbon tax would change the cost equation.

Expand full comment

See my remark about the relationship between CO2 emissions and Gaia's suicide.

Expand full comment

I believe that a carbon tax is a very bad idea:

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-a-carbon-tax-will-not-work

Expand full comment

"Makes energy more expensive (so it violates what should be the primary goal of energy policy)"

Yes it makes some types of energy more expensive to cover their externalities so as to discourage those forms. That's the whole concept!

"Does not deal with most of the negative side effects of energy"

Like pollution I suppose? So call it something else and do cover all those other negative effects.

"Amount will be set by politics, not science"

Rational political policy needs to be based on science. Fearing government policy is an excuse to do nothing.

"Is Regressive"

Back to your first point I suppose.

"Is unlikely to be implemented"

Again, an excuse to do nothing.

"Disincentivizes natural gas"

So? Scientific consensus holds that gas leaks have even more greenhouse consequences. Granted not nearly the same particulate pollution. Besides, policy can easily set different tax rates for NG.

"(in some cases) Will tax the wrong energy producers."

Oh? I can find no explanation of this one in your article. Examples?

Expand full comment

Lease the parking lot to hold spent nuclear fuel canisters...

Expand full comment

Good overview article!

Extremely costly to decommission wind turbines and solar panels are not really recyclable.

Ex.

https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/wind-turbines-are-full-of-sh-and

https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/hail-marys-and-shattered-dreams-an

Expand full comment
Aug 24Liked by Mitch Rolling

Thanks, gents. Don't be discouraged by the peanut gallery here. I appreciate you mentioning some factors in passing but not analyzing everything to keep this readable, many commenters missed that, or perhaps they are looking for a 1000-page analysis in the wrong place.

I'm curious if the nuclear costs are so high because of regulation or not here. I suspect so. And on the flip side, there are definitely artificial (not free market) forces making alt-energy capex lower, and I'll look into how that is accounted for in the numbers you chose.

Expand full comment

Yes, dozens of regulatory hurdles, approvals, permits, licenses are needed from federal, state, and local authorities, most of whom are not engineers or energy experts. I hope this is all streamlined as the inadequacy of the power grid results in enough blackouts to demand attention to our dire need for nuclear power plants. Cut the red tape!

Expand full comment

Ike Eisenhower tried to streamline AEC regulations. The Rockefeller Brothers Foundation leapt into action to promote the "Linear No Threshold" theory of the relationship between radiation exposure and the risk of heritable defects and cancer. That relationship was known to be false when Hermann Muller accepted his Nobel Prize in medicine and when Linus Pauling accepted his Nobel Peace Prize.

Details and more in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" A comprehensive end-to-end life-cycle system-engineering analysis of the entire energy landscape. Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so you can verify I didn't just make up stuff.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the heads up on your book.

Expand full comment

Don't forget unlimited third party interventions in the licensing process even after the license has been granted.

Expand full comment

Regulation definitely makes nuclear multiple times more expensive than it need be. Just a few years ago South Korea was building nuclear plants for a quarter of the cost in the USA -- and closer to what it used to cost in the USA.

Expand full comment

China is building them for under $4.00/watt using ripped-off Westinghouse AP1000 technology, upsized to 1,400 MWe. They're designing the equivalent of AP1700. They like big reactors instead of small modular ones because they need less fissionables per watt.

Expand full comment

There's no physical/economic reason that nuclear plants must be so expensive. We used to build them for under $1B in 2005 equivalent dollars. I suspect we could do that now if gave nuclear the kind of preferences, never mind subsidies, that we give wind and solar.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

Expand full comment

Someone smarter than me needs to put a full price tag on all the missing data in those estimates that sound like this: "wind/solar/EVs are so wasteful that a they make a drunken sailor look frugal, and that's before we throw in storage & transmission costs, grid upgrades, capacity/reliability issues..."

Expand full comment

I did that in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" A comprehensive end-to-end life-cycle system-engineering analysis of the entire energy landscape. Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so you can verify I didn't just make up stuff.

Expand full comment

This explains why the LCOE is-like most accounting entries-useless when presenting an apple to apples comparison of current and future power plants developments. If you believe-as I do-that the IRA & similar legislation are more about industrial policy than environmental you will come to understand that payouts are out the heart of industrial policy when it comes to large projects. As a results the amount of electricity won't matter as much as the GDP inflation. Emissions does not even matter because the lowering of emissions are a dividend of the Oil & Gas industry.

Expand full comment

Love that you cats go on Justice's show... Keep up the great work! Yes, I subscribe to the CoAE.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, Danimal! Mitch and I left CoAE to start our own group but I’m glad you subscribe there!

Expand full comment
Aug 25Liked by Isaac Orr

Hi.

I have a question regarding Solar panels and wind turbines capital costs.

Are these based on building them using cheap fossil fuels? Eg 4 cent mwh in China. How expensive would they be using power generated by solar or end? And then doesn’t the second generation of infrastructure get even more expensive? Spiraling evermore?

Expand full comment
author

Hi Ross and thanks for your question. Unfortunately I don’t know the answer on the cost of power used to produce them, but if you’re using expensive energy to create more expensive energy harvesters, then everything gets more expensive

Expand full comment

There was a recent article/report (can't remember where now) regarding carbon intensity of solar panels with a similar ilk.

Apparently, the commonly used figures for the carbon intensity of solar panels are way too low, because the estimates were made using an assumption of a grid with an EU mix of fuel for powering the manufacturing. If one actually uses the grid in China with its coal-heavy generation, the CO2 intensity of solar panels is much much higher and much more realistic.

Expand full comment
Aug 24·edited Aug 24Liked by Isaac Orr

Great article, and thanks for including natural gas. For construction costs, did you use CCGT or simple cycle?

I am also curious where you got the 80% cost for repowering.

Expand full comment

I have been fighting solar and wind for just over 4 years now and boy have I learned a lot, with much more to go!

My first thoughts during this journey were exactly what is being said here by Isaac and Mitch. "Graveyards all across Texas" has been my mantra now for years!

These sites will not be cleaned up, will not be recycled, will not be taken care of and as long as the green grift is in. I talk to people across the state who say they know a solar site that is not working, or damaged or left. I know people who have had wind turbines fall on their property from the neighbors, or turbines which burn.

If you think the orphan well program is bad, think again - those are only a few acres and mostly simple to fix - about $50,000-$80,000 per well, if there are no problems. Oil and gas pay into those funds. Wind and solar have nothing and anything that is proposed is not worth having since other strings are attached in the companies favor! Landowners seem to be clueless that they are responsible. I know one who was trying to get the county to clean up..... he should have put some of those earning aside, so no sympathy here!

We have about 250,000 acres under production in Texas for solar - that's about 100 million solar panels to recycle - at $20-30 each to recycle.... won't happen. Wind turbine - about $500,000 to remove - won't happen. Let's hope it's not our tax dollars to remove them!

These solar farms will sell and sell again and again, and be bundled up like bad debt and sold again to whatever bidder will take them. Single entity corporations will simply walk away when the production is worthless and they have no insurance.

Weather vulnerable, weather dependent! Not a good combination for the consumer!

Great article guys and great analogy!

Expand full comment

When a wind turbine blade breaks over a farmer's land, he can't harvest his crops of feed it to his livestock because of fiberglass contamination. If it gets into groundwater, neither he nor his downstream neighbors can use it. Then the owner of the turbine out-lawyers him and he's stuck with the clean-up expense. He thought $25,000/yr was good "drought insurance," until he discovered that after getting $250,000 -- $350,000 over the lifetime of the turbine, he's stuck with the $600,000 cost to remove it and clean up the mess.

Expand full comment