As someone also served by PG&E I don't think cheaper electricity will help. At peak hours electricity is $0.13/kwh but the delivery charge is $0.50/kwh.

▲

nicce 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> At peak hours electricity is $0.13/kwh but the delivery charge is $0.50/kwh.

Unfortunately, transmission has a natural monopoly risk, unless the government owns without profit requirements. The price peak is when it is just cheaper to make second set of lines next to old one and you can still pay the investment with fewer customers and lower price.

▲

LinXitoW 3 days ago | parent [-]

If we had renewables everywhere, wouldn't a lot of that potentially disappear?

	▲	nicce 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It depends how much competition there would be if for-profit company owns them. If there is just one source nearby, isn’t that another monopoly risk? The price starts to balance with high distance tranmission cost monopoly vs monopoly of nearby energy source. If we find many small renewable sources that are cheap to build, maybe that balances it out.

▲

justahuman74 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At some point the electricity will be near-free, and we'll just pay transmission fees

	▲	qwertox 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Companies certainly won't pay for the maintenance. They'll let them degrade and then the government will have to take over. So we get charged twice, that is the real price.

▲

theptip 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The goal of making nuclear cheaper isn’t to lower consumer costs. It’s to displace CO2 emitting baseload sources like coal and gas.

▲

chermi 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why not not both?

▲

theptip 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, but one comes first.

▲

jayd16 3 days ago | parent [-]

And it's going to end up being price.

	▲	theptip 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t follow. If nuclear initially costs more than coal, then the first effect as it decreases is displacement when the prices cross over. Then if it falls further you will notice consumer price drops.

▲

ViewTrick1002 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or you know, build renewables and storage which has in recent years reduced Californias fossil gas dependency by 40%.

▲

theptip 3 days ago | parent [-]

“All of the above” seems a good approach. If this is an existential crisis, why would we not hedge our bets?

(Not everywhere has good sun for solar.)

	▲	ViewTrick1002 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That is what we did 20 years ago when the renewable industry barely existed. What has happened since is that the nuclear industry essentially collapsed given the outcome of Virgil C. Summer, Vogtle, Olkiluoto, Flamanville and Hinkley Point C and can't build new plants while renewables and storage are delivering over 90% of new capacity in the US. Being the cheapest energy source in human history. We've gone past the "throw stuff at the wall" phase, now we know what sticks and that is renewables and storage. The places with worse sun conditions tend to have amazing wind resources. Or be such a tiny niche that caring about them is irrelevant, like the few people living in the wind kill of the arctic high north of the polar circle.
	▲	s1mplicissimus 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Solar is not the only alternative. Tidal, river flow, reservoir, wind, thermal come to mind in terms of renewables.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]