Replies

I think you’re on to something. Nuclear power is more expensive than Wind ? Wind generators are playing “Hide the Sausage” with their numbers then.

Coal and NG are no-brainers. Even on long term analysis, Nuclear power brings BIG problems to the table with disposal.

Nuclear power brings BIG problems to the table with disposal.<

For some France does not have the same problems?

Yes, France!

Omaha Public Power District is also shutting down their Nuke Plant. They can't generate less than the cost of wind. There is a coal plant on the Missouri River just south of Sioux City, and it has been offlined for awhile, also because of the cost of wind.

Now this is a western Iowa thing. There are all sorts of windmills in Iowa, Iowa gets the highest percentage of its power from wind. The problem is, there is no transmission to get it out of Western Iowa to higher population areas like Chicago. They are attempting to build a large transmission line across Iowa, but it is running into the usual environmental issues.

Wind is generally right at about 2 cents per KWH. That coal plant I mentioned can't be profitable when the market rate is below about 2.5 cents, and the nuke plant in Omaha had costs of around 4 cents I think.

Believe it or not (and I have the links to the wholesale electric costs), frequently overnights, the wholesale costs of electric in western Iowa go negative, meaning producers have to pay people to take the electric off their hands.

Google and Facebook have built huge server facilities in Iowa because of this. They demand huge amounts of electric, and it is super cheap here (or at least they can negotiate their rates, consumers still pay rates much above 2 cents per KWH.)

Of course, the farmers are happy to rent out their land for windmills, and the enviromentals haven't got too freaked out about the "ugliness" of them, or the bird kills. So Iowa has lots of windmills.

Wind generators are heavily subsidized. IIRC they’re profitable without selling power.