The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

9,876 Members

Post

No Climate Solution Without Nuclear, Experts Say

Jarret Adams's picture

Thank Jarret 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.

Recent Comments

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on November 26, 2015

Jarret, this Thanksgiving I’m thankful for the recent wave of support for the source of energy capable of addressing the most critical imperative of our time, one with implications tens of thousands of years into the future.

I grew up in Illinois, home of the Manhattan Project and probably the most unabashedly pro-nuclear state in the Union. In the 1960s substantial portions of school science classes were devoted to what fission was, and why it was the energy of the future. Today, Illinois generates more than half of its electricity carbon-free despite being rich in coal and poor in renewable resources.

Thank you for this well-written contribution in support of nuclear energy today. Let’s hope many other voices join yours – and more importantly, those who make the big decisions in energy are listening.

Keith Pickering's picture
Keith Pickering on November 27, 2015

Minor quibbles: France’s share of low-carbon electricity is 95%, not 97%, according to your cited source. This error may arise because generation from renewables is actually at 18% and not 20%.

wind smith's picture
wind smith on November 27, 2015

We need a CO2 tax that will support reliable, safe nuclear policy/technology that ensures an environmentally benign nuclear fuel cycle, plant rebuilding or decommissioning with responsible long term waste storage. The same tax will also support all the other carbon free/low carbon energy, even CCS if it ever gets scaled up. This would also support a high efficiency economy without utilities needing to build distribution costs into generation cost, allowing a business disconnect between generation and distribution.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on November 28, 2015

Op/ed in New York Times today: The New Atomic Age We Need

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/opinion/the-new-atomic-age-we-need.html

Jarret Adams's picture
Jarret Adams on November 28, 2015

Thank you for your kind comment, Bob. I am hopeful too.

Jarret Adams's picture
Jarret Adams on November 28, 2015

Good catch Keith! There was some conflicting info in that report. Will try to revise if possible. Thanks.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on November 29, 2015

“…a business disconnect between generation and distribution.”

Yes, I think we are headed in that direction.   With growing use of behind-the-meter distributed generation, the only way to fairly share the cost of electricity distribution (and grid generation capacity adequacy) is via a billing charge that depends only on peak-hour peak demand.  There is no benefit to giving customers a discount for not using the distribution grid on a sunny Spring day if the grid is not stressed at that time.  We’ll have to economically reward the baseload customers for using the distribution grid efficiently and economically punish those user who buy all of their daily usage in the evenings when the grid is congested, or worse yet, some particularly burdensome users might buy all of their annual usage on just a few dozen cloudy days.

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on December 7, 2015

Jarret,

I agree with you regarding nuclear having a major role in future, worldwide, energy generation. Also we need to electrify more of our economy, and make it more efficient.

The Jacobson/Delucchi duo, of “100% RE by 2050” fame, are in Paris defending their studies, which are, in my opinion, hogwash. They want to have 50% wind 45% solar, 5% misc., for ALL of US energy, not just electrical energy, and claim they can do all this at less LCOE than BAU.

Their scheme of having CSP w/storage in the US southwest to provide most of the peaking, filling-in and balancing anywhere, anytime would require an HVDC overlay grid system stretching all the way to northern Maine, about 10,000 miles of system @ $7.5 million/mile = $75 BILLION.

It is barely mentioned in the report. In fact any OTHER grid system costs are also not mentioned in the report.

Here is an article that totally debunks that premise. It is rather long, but worth the A to Z read. If you like it mark the like button, as I did with your article:

http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/2264202/reducing-us-primary-energy-wind-and-solar-energy-and-energy-efficiency

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 »