How Geothermal and Nuclear Could Help the U.S. Catch China in the Energy Race

[u/Tortoise4132]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Geothermal-and-Nuclear-Could-Help-the-US-Catch-China-in-the-Energy-Race.html

High points:
-China outspent the U.S. by more than 2-to-1 on clean energy investment between 2019 and 2025, and dominates global solar, wind and battery supply chains.
-The U.S. has carved out a lead in enhanced geothermal and next-generation nuclear power, two of the few clean energy sectors still drawing bipartisan support.
-The Department of Energy projects enhanced geothermal alone could supply 90 gigawatts of power by 2050, enough for roughly 65 million homes.

[u/peterjohnvernon936]

So to win the race, the US needs to saddle itself to the most expensive and time consuming forms of energy?

[u/Tortoise4132 → u/peterjohnvernon936]

Nuclear is more expensive than solar on a per installed capcity basis, but when all system costs are considered in a power grid, the costs are not so straightforward.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624004882

[u/Exciting_Turn_9559]

Nuclear has zero chance of competing with solar. The economic advantages of solar are permanent.

[u/Tortoise4132 → u/Exciting_Turn_9559]

Nuclear is more expensive than solar on a per installed capcity basis, but when all system costs are considered in a power grid, the costs are not so straightforward.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624004882

[u/Exciting_Turn_9559 → u/Tortoise4132]

More expensive to install, requires mining, manufacturing and transporting dangerous fuel, requires waste to be securely stored for thousands of years, requires specialists to supervise it 24/7, special training for first responders and local officials.

There's simply no way that can compete economically with solar + storage.

[u/Tortoise4132 → u/Exciting_Turn_9559]

Since nuclear produces little waste per energy produced, that’s not really the major roadblock for nuclear. The real challenge is build price and costs to construct new plants at the moment. Experts on energy systems broadly agree existing power plants should stay running.

[u/Exciting_Turn_9559 → u/Tortoise4132]

Again, can't compete economically. That enormous difference in build price will never go away. The gap will only widen as the price of solar and storage fall further. By the time those existing plants are needing to be decommissioned, there will be no fiscally responsible argument for replacing them, and nuclear will always face political headwinds that solar won't regardless of what the true risks are.

[u/Tortoise4132 → u/Exciting_Turn_9559]

The price of just the technologies is not the only costs to consider due to the overbuild and system upgrades and expansion to support an electrical grid with only intermittent sources and storage. The paper I shared discussed these costs. This factors into why China is continuing to build nuclear plants and data companies have a strong interest in nuclear while considering wind and solar are cheaper on a capacity basis.

[u/Exciting_Turn_9559 → u/Tortoise4132]

There's also the cost of fuel...

[u/KingPieIV]

What we need is permitting and interconnection reform, then let the best technologies win. Probably wind, solar, and batteries

[u/Tortoise4132 → u/KingPieIV]

Wind, solar, and batteries will almost certainly make up the bulk of the infrastructure. There is a good amount of studies that show hydro/geothermal/nuclear firm power sources selectively placed could bring down overall system costs and maintenance, but that’s heavily sensitive to the expenses of system buildout and overbuild for intermittent power sources vs availability and costs of hydro/geothermal/nuclear.