Great interview, Charles, thanks so much for sharing!

The batteries are great for about a day. Clearly in Arizona, you're going to do a much better job of approaching grid reliability with one day of battery than you are in Cleveland. In just a couple of years, hopefully in Arizona just with a couple of days of battery, you can get to grid reliability. But you're not going to do it in Cleveland. So, what we're going to need, rather than do something like six days of generation is, we're going to have to rely on gas units. Now the more renewables we get, the less these gas units will run.

I appreciated these arguments and the Cleveland effect you discuss. Do you think the availability of something like HVDC interconnecting more parts of the nation's grid could help out this issue at least marginally?

Excellent, Charles. I seems anyone who has studied physics is also a nuclear fanatic (if anyone insisting on meticulous energy accounting deserves that label).

One correction:

"It costs a heck of a lot more to run a nuke than it does a gas plant because of all the technical people, the safety mechanisms, and things, but they're neglecting carbon."

A common myth. According the the U.S. Energy Information Administration, it costs a heckuva lot (27%) less to run a nuke plant than a gas plant, per megawatthour of electricity - even with small-scale renewables added to the mix:

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

Also, what would be the purpose of spending money on solar panels and batteries in Arizona, with the country's largest nuclear plant (Palo Verde) in-state?

Great points Charles, I liked this quote:

"At the cost of energy, a new thousand megawatt and wind farm in Arizona is cheaper than a coal plant. There's no doubt about it. But when you start throwing up the static VAR compensators, ancillary services, backup, reserves, and batteries that you've got to have, it's not cheaper.

When you include climate change, it switches back to being much cheaper than coal. It all depends. I joke that people in the fossil fuel industry don't recognize climate change externalities, and people on the renewable side don't recognize the externalities of the grid. "

The nuclear industry´s strategy seems to be to demonize all other possible alternatives to fossil fuels until nothing is left but nuclear.  It offers little in its own favor. The strategy  worked for quite a while until the last few years when the cost of solar and wind plummeted.   The facts remain that 1) Of all the options, nuclear is by far the most expensive.  See, for example,  http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/latest-lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-published-nov-2019/ 2) Nuclear´s only play these days is to extend the life of existing plants while the industry comes up with the next big thing, one that has been promised for upwards of 50 years, just repackaged and re-marketed. 3) Nuclear is still in denial mode with respect to the waste problem.  4. While the carbon footprint of extended life nuclear plants may be low, new plants are by no means even competitive with solar and wind with respect to the life cycle carbon footprint.    And even the extended life nukes are non-competitive in some markets.  The industry, as far as I can tell, doesn´t even address the issue, other than to say what a shame it would be to shut down perfectly good nuclear generator plants, as long as the government (us) pays for it.  There is a place for research. But for how long will the taxpayer carry the industry?  5. Big nuclear accidents happen.  They do not inspire confidence.

I just don´t see the case for new nuclear, barely for old nuclear. Maybe we all will tomorrow. But it never seems to come.  In the meantime, renewables provide more and more clean and dependable energy to many people now.   Their trajectory is almost vertical. Storage systems advance steadily.  And the intermittency issue is getting old already. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/. Also https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MITJPSPGC_Rpt277.pdf And, with respect to peakload gas: “Nowadays with the emergence of energy storage and other technologies the peaking power plants have started to phase out in the developed countries. Energy storage, demand response techniques and innovative grid technologies are becoming more and more attractive. In places like Germany and California, USA these signs are prominent.” https://www.sciencepolicycircle.org/38-the-peakers-the-role-of-peaking-power-plants-and-their-relevance-today Please find another horse to flog.

Until nuclear can make a case for itself on its own merits instead of by denying the value of alternatives, the nuclear industry will have to be regarded as an extreme liability, both financially and environmentally.   Great research. Really interesting.  I can´t get enough about super conductors and giant magnets.  I hope the taxpayers agree to keep paying.

But, essentially the nuclear industry´s suggestion seems to be to nationalize the electricity industry by  government financing, constructing and indemnifying nuclear plants. Yeah, that´ll work.

There may be a pie in the sky. But, let´s not count on it anymore