# Latest anti-nuclear activist: former chair of Nuclear Regulatory Commission **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2019, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-anti-nuclear-activist-former-chair-of-nuclear-regulatory-commission/834113 "2019-05-17T12:51:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-anti-nuclear-activist-former-chair-of-nuclear-regulatory-commission/834113/81 "2019-05-28T06:41:02Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Why? Why is cost an issue wrt nuclear, but not wrt renewables? > [@XT](#): > > I just want to put this in some perspective. Currently, the US has 60 nuclear power plants that produce around 19% of our energy needs. For $1 trillion dollars we could build…200. Can we? Because last I checked, [it costs around $9B to build zero reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station) (I think it might be more than $9B now. The cost to build zero reactors keeps going up, even after they haven’t been built.). And that’s at an existing nuclear site! So if you’re going to convince me that a reactor can be built for $5B in the US, you’ll have to show me one. Yes, the storage needed for renewables to take over _most_ generation are not cheap, either. But they have a key advantage in that they tend to work partially. 99% of a nuclear reactor is bupkis. But 99% of a big battery is 99% of a big battery. So the threat of losing your entire investment is much less. Furthermore, the technologies tend to be more granular: it’s not $5B or nothing. You can build a useful battery for $10M, and a bigger one for $100M or $1B or $10B. They scale exactly proportionally with cost. Granted, grid upgrades are more all-or-nothing. But there are far fewer uncertainties here compared to nuclear. High tension power lines are being built all the time. They’re easy and completely safe. There is no concerted effort to prevent them. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-anti-nuclear-activist-former-chair-of-nuclear-regulatory-commission/834113/82 "2019-05-28T06:58:59Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > How sure of your projections are you? Sure enough to wager real life dollars. I will be alive in the next 2 decades and can wait. > > How much do you want to lose? First, I’m not a betting man, but if I was I’d bet as a hedge. I’m already too invested in the future I laid out. But for the sake of argument, exactly which prediction do you want to bet on? I stated my points vaguely, but I’m happy to make some of them more concrete. I predict that, in 2039, in the USA: - Fewer kilowatt-hours will be produced by light water nuclear reactors than in 2019. - Non-carbon, non-nuclear energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc.) will produce \>50% of total electric energy. - There will be over 30 GW nameplate capacity offshore wind power. - Grid battery storage will cost \<$150/kWh installed (2019 dollars). - There will be at least three major new grid interties, \>500 mi and \>2 GW (at least one endpoint in the US). - Coal electrical production will be \<10%. - Natural gas will be \<20%. - Peak atmospheric CO2 readings will be \>425 ppm. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-anti-nuclear-activist-former-chair-of-nuclear-regulatory-commission/834113/83 "2019-05-28T07:14:44Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > How much battery capacity is needed to run manufacturing plants in Alberta in winter? Hard to say. Wind seems like the best bet there. As well as importing hydroelectric power from BC. I looked at a map of hydroelectric power in Canada, and Alberta has dismal utilization for some reason. The map also claimed that Alberta has plenty of untapped hydroelectric potential but I don’t want to speculate on why that’s untapped. > [@sps49sd](#): > > What are the expected transmission losses in sending power from New Mexico to Alberta? Maybe 8%. High voltage DC lines are around 3% loss per 1000 km. The distance is ~2000 km from Calgary to central NM as the crow flies. I added a bit since the route wouldn’t be exactly straight. > [@sps49sd](#): > > Of what will these huge battery arrays be made? How much will costs rise as more are made? Prices will go down as more are made. The basic materials like lithium are abundant, but because present demand is relatively low, there aren’t many mines or factories open now. That will change as demand goes up, and as time passes and efficiencies are learned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-anti-nuclear-activist-former-chair-of-nuclear-regulatory-commission/834113.md?page=4)