[jk700]

> It can't possibly be economically competitive if it is driving a steam turbine

What do you mean by "economic competition"? Generally speaking with current technology there is no power cheaper than nuclear power. In that sense it is the most competitive power there is.

But not for private investment funds looking to own power generation and secure huge returns in relatively short term. They'd rather see more expensive inferior dirtier climate-changing power generation they can profit from, not government owned nuclear they can't ever compete with. And in that sense no project with long term investments in science, education, infrastructure will ever be competitive for capitalists. So does it really matter then?

Luckily not everyone is fond of capitalists. Ukraine, for example, recently decided to go against certain capitalist run countries pushing it to limit nuclear and finish building new reactors, because other power is not actually economically competitive. If Ukraine can, surely most of the world can do it too.

[PaulHoule]

Not economically competitive with a gas-turbine power plant powered by methane. (almost the same thing as the power plant on a jet airplane)

The real hazard of the current "renewable energy" economy that is when the sun doesn't shine the backup power is generated from methane (aka 'natural gas') which has very high power density and very low capital cost compared to the steam turbine either in a coal or nuclear plant. (If the airplane was propelled by a steam turbine, the turbine would be the size of the fuselage)

Almost no coal plants have been built in the period in which no nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. for pretty much the same reason. The steam turbine is so expensive it wouldn't be worth it even if the heat was free.

---

If a new power source can beat fossil fuels in direct economics it saves the planet. The job is done.

With anything that involves forcing somebody to pay somebody else to make something that is allegedly sustainable the one thing you do know is somebody will get rich on the friction, if the earth is saved is beside the point.

If you love your children's grandchildren choose wisely.

[gruez]

>the backup power is generated from methane (aka 'natural gas') which has very high power density and very low capital cost compared to the steam turbine either in a coal or nuclear plant.

Doesn't natural gas power plants also use turbines to generate electricity? How can it be cheaper than the steam turbine portion of a coal/nuclear power plant?

[tuatoru]

Combined cycle gas turbine generators use a steam turbine as a second, downstream method to recover exergy from the exhaust of the main gas turbine.

CCGTs are expensive. Simple gas turbines that are used to meet daily demand peaks are relatively cheap; as GP said they're basically stationary jet engines.

To me it's kind of bizarre that money is so cheap at present, but somehow it's still too costly to use it to invest in things with a delayed payback.

[jk700]

> Not economically competitive with a gas-turbine power plant powered by methane.

This assumes natural gas is cheap and not imported, most countries don't have it that way.

[PaulHoule]

More of them will if the "hydrofracking" technology used in the US proliferates.