Having an "objective measure" that includes other things than just money - i.e., an open mind to other viewpoints of what value is -- like having a perception / "feeling" towards another person.
I've done some math on subsidies, though it is simplistic. Using data from EIA's "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Years 2016–2022" nuclear subsidies were worth $0.0549 per terawatt-hour of energy produced. On the other hand, wind and solar were $2.3947 and $6.8382 per terawatt-hour. Those numbers are the total subsidy reported by the EIA, divided by the energy each source produced.
What that tells me is that the government spent about a nickel for every TWH produced by nuclear, but over $2 and $6 dollars, respectively, for wind and solar. During that same period, 2022, capacity factors for each of those sources were 92.8%, 34.4% and 24.4%.
Are you familiar with J. Conca's paper, "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples," published Jun 15, 2023 in Nuclear News? It compares sources in an unsubsidized fashion, and is actually surprising (I thought) in its results. Of course, Conca's assumptions are subject to change, which would of course impact outcomes. But overall, his numbers are reasonable. If you'd like a copy, please contact me at butternuts@cox.net.
Declare marginal improvement. But I have no idea if the subsidy per Kw second of electricity produced was the same as from wind solar or geothermal. And of course not all seconds are equal value.
I've done some math on subsidies, though it is simplistic. Using data from EIA's "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Years 2016–2022" nuclear subsidies were worth $0.0549 per terawatt-hour of energy produced. On the other hand, wind and solar were $2.3947 and $6.8382 per terawatt-hour. Those numbers are the total subsidy reported by the EIA, divided by the energy each source produced.
What that tells me is that the government spent about a nickel for every TWH produced by nuclear, but over $2 and $6 dollars, respectively, for wind and solar. During that same period, 2022, capacity factors for each of those sources were 92.8%, 34.4% and 24.4%.
Are you familiar with J. Conca's paper, "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples," published Jun 15, 2023 in Nuclear News? It compares sources in an unsubsidized fashion, and is actually surprising (I thought) in its results. Of course, Conca's assumptions are subject to change, which would of course impact outcomes. But overall, his numbers are reasonable. If you'd like a copy, please contact me at butternuts@cox.net.
Thanks for sharing the math. Looks pretty clear. I tend to see nuclear energy as a litmus test for carbon reduction advocates. If one advocates for low carbon, but won’t support nuclear energy (affordable, clean, no surges or weather reliance) then i see that person as simply a de-growth malthusian that uses carbon as a cudgel.
Actually, we can complain that the subsidies were not set up so that the project proponents "did the math" of how much CO2 reduction was being offered in return for the subsidy.
Having an "objective measure" that includes other things than just money - i.e., an open mind to other viewpoints of what value is -- like having a perception / "feeling" towards another person.
I've done some math on subsidies, though it is simplistic. Using data from EIA's "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Years 2016–2022" nuclear subsidies were worth $0.0549 per terawatt-hour of energy produced. On the other hand, wind and solar were $2.3947 and $6.8382 per terawatt-hour. Those numbers are the total subsidy reported by the EIA, divided by the energy each source produced.
What that tells me is that the government spent about a nickel for every TWH produced by nuclear, but over $2 and $6 dollars, respectively, for wind and solar. During that same period, 2022, capacity factors for each of those sources were 92.8%, 34.4% and 24.4%.
Are you familiar with J. Conca's paper, "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples," published Jun 15, 2023 in Nuclear News? It compares sources in an unsubsidized fashion, and is actually surprising (I thought) in its results. Of course, Conca's assumptions are subject to change, which would of course impact outcomes. But overall, his numbers are reasonable. If you'd like a copy, please contact me at butternuts@cox.net.
I was was being serious -- everything you write - seems to center around money.
Money is an objective measure of value. Can you suggest another ?
Does everything you think and write about -- center on money only?
????
Nuclear was also eligible for subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, so i guess you can declare victory on that one
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/04/1080111/2023-climate-tech-companies-nuscale-modular-nuclear-reactors-power-modular-fission/
Declare marginal improvement. But I have no idea if the subsidy per Kw second of electricity produced was the same as from wind solar or geothermal. And of course not all seconds are equal value.
I've done some math on subsidies, though it is simplistic. Using data from EIA's "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Years 2016–2022" nuclear subsidies were worth $0.0549 per terawatt-hour of energy produced. On the other hand, wind and solar were $2.3947 and $6.8382 per terawatt-hour. Those numbers are the total subsidy reported by the EIA, divided by the energy each source produced.
What that tells me is that the government spent about a nickel for every TWH produced by nuclear, but over $2 and $6 dollars, respectively, for wind and solar. During that same period, 2022, capacity factors for each of those sources were 92.8%, 34.4% and 24.4%.
Are you familiar with J. Conca's paper, "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples," published Jun 15, 2023 in Nuclear News? It compares sources in an unsubsidized fashion, and is actually surprising (I thought) in its results. Of course, Conca's assumptions are subject to change, which would of course impact outcomes. But overall, his numbers are reasonable. If you'd like a copy, please contact me at butternuts@cox.net.
Thanks for sharing the math. Looks pretty clear. I tend to see nuclear energy as a litmus test for carbon reduction advocates. If one advocates for low carbon, but won’t support nuclear energy (affordable, clean, no surges or weather reliance) then i see that person as simply a de-growth malthusian that uses carbon as a cudgel.
I have no idea either. But there’s no point in complaining until someone does the math.
Actually, we can complain that the subsidies were not set up so that the project proponents "did the math" of how much CO2 reduction was being offered in return for the subsidy.