This special interest group is for professionals to connect and discuss all types of carbon-free power alternatives, including nuclear, renewable, tidal and more.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Nuclear Power Policy Activist Independent

I am a passionate advocate for the environment and nuclear energy. With the threat of climate change, I’ve embarked on a mission to help overcome the fears of nuclear energy. I’ve been active in...

  • Member since 2018
  • 6,979 items added with 239,042 views
  • Jul 22, 2020
  • 1211 views

Michael Bloomberg's investment of $500 million in wind and solar is a mistake, according to the CEO of his company Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BloombergNEF). Michael Liebreich says renewables are "hardly a particularly convincing springboard" for decarbonizing the global energy system. He notes EON’s Isar-2 nuclear power plant in Bavaria, built in 1988, "produced 83% as much zero-carbon power in 2018 as all the wind turbines in Denmark," adding "German anti-nuclear activists will be weighed in the same scales by history as fossil fuel promoters."

Given Michael Bloomberg hasn't invested a dime in it, "We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power" might have been addressed to Liebreich's boss.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Thank Bob for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Jul 22, 2020

Good article... highly recommended.

Ron Davison's picture
Ron Davison on Jul 23, 2020

Thank You Germany,

because of you the US has solar and to some degree wind at 1/2 the cost of what we would pay if we did the heavy lifting 1st.

And we probably would not have done the heavy lifting, to busy lifting heavy metals out of the earth with the carbon we are after.

Fuel rods for nuclear is 3 to 4 cents a kwh

Wind and solar are now cheaper than nuclear fuel rods alone in the more southern or arrid regions of the country.

Even in NY solar and wind are cheaper when you add disposal costs of just the spent fuel rods, not counting the demolition/decommissioning of a nuclear plant, the 2  decades to build with no power out, just FF power in to build being burned till plant turns the on switch on for the 1st time.

Then it must run for about the same amount of time, just to recover the energy to build the plant, just on site energy.

3 to 4 decades from 1st capitol spend before nuclear starts to remove C02. (after removing its own Co2 build escapes.)

Now add cost of capitol interest and the nuclear plant must run even longer to hit ROI. And that is whith the subsidies and free catastrophic insurance policy not purchased.

There is the cost to repalce insurance premuim, and the we melted half the state cost hit, Even if all the insurance companies pooled their capitol for one nuclear plant the policy could not be paid economically for both risks and not have the most expensive power ever.

Take that same capitol and buy wind and solar, it comes on line in about a year.

So solar and wind will have produced more carbon free energy than the nuclear plant can ever displace FF burns with, because of the delay time and interest rate capitol costs.

Nuclear does not have to have insurance, its covered by the government.

That means your responsible for the cost of nuclear fails, assuming your not one of the unfortunate during a catastrophic fail.

And thats if the nuclear is ever finished.

we are batting a thousand with both new nuke builds now abandonded, with the rate payers holding the bag.

Old nuke that has been run safely needs to be aknowledged and given honors for those that run them.

Their time serving the nations power needs, impeccably, cannot have a price tag put on it, just know its a big bad # if these folks did not care and do the best job possible.

But it is a new era now, and the econimics point to the now, proven new energy sources.

Start putting storage at the nuclear sites now.

Indepedent of the nuclear plant closures.

We should plan on them closing, but allow them to operate as long as needed until the proven replacements are on line.

The increasing intermittent power will cause a surplus at times.

Nuclear can't ramp up and down well, so it needs a place to store energy when high solar and wind % is in mix, but not so high a % that the nuclear plant is not needed some of the time.

This allows sinking nuclear power at the site so that wind and solar can be dispatched in real time to loads.

The T&D is in place, the land is brown fielded for centuries or longer.

As the plant nears shut down and its power is only used at night to feed the duck curve, the workers of the plant can stay working adding more and more storage.

Nuclear plants can also be used to drive RO for drinking water.

This is a novel way to store energy in water supply creation adds.

If the fresh water can be stored at elevation the water can be used for pumped hydro as well.

All the hydro from Canada is probably the reason that the nuclear plant can even close.

we should partner with Canada to add pumped hydro in Canadas hydro mix.

This allows for US wind and solar excess power to be stored, rather than curtailed.

It also solves the resistance to expanding one way hydro, because it takes one or two orders of magnitude less surface area than a one way dam for the same MWH out.

Ron Davison's picture
Ron Davison on Jul 23, 2020

Nuclear is not needed for a credible plan.

In fact Nuclear needs to be excluded if we are to meet out short term goals.

Why?

Because Nuclear plants have historically taken decades to build.

and then the carbon release from the build, the minning, and the disposal and decomissioning carbon release need to be subtracted form nuclear power outputs.

This means it could be 3-4 decades before a nuclear plant becomes carbon neutral.

We will have reached our goal, just with win and solar and storage before this could ever happen if we had put the same capitol nto nuclear proliferation adn nuclear enrgy production.

Or decades to construct, then abadoned, before ever making a kwh of power.

Only a carbon cration source not a carbon sink.

This is what has been proven.

The caveat to this is the new "failsafe" nuclear being promoted by nuclear advocates.

It may work.

It may not work.

We where promissed free and uber safe energy since the 50's from the nuclear crowd for ever.

And we ares till waiting...

So forgive us if we do not believe you when yu say new nuclear is perfect and safe and cheap.

Fool me once...

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »