AHC Answer: More Nuclear Power

With a strong force to push for Fusion, it's likely you'd see the Center for Fusion Engineering be created while projects like Princeton’s Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory’s Mirror Fusion Test Reactor get a chance to actually operate, instead of shut down on the day they were supposed in the example of the latter.
My understanding is that they realized that the Mirror Fusion Test Facility wasn't actually going to work and wasn't a plausible way forward to an actually functional reactor late enough in the construction process that it made more sense to finish it and shut it down rather than just cancel it immediately. @asnys knows more about this subject, I think...
 
Coal plants on the East Coast will pay more for shipping coal from Wyoming than the coal itself costs.


If you think Coal is bad, you should see the transport costs of perishable fruits and vegetables
average_price_coal_delivered_end-use_sector.png

Better grade Coal is used for Coke to be used for steelmaking, lower grade for power

The highest transport cost for RR from another EIA page I could find was $44.96 from Wyoming to Ohio in 2014. Same State deliveries seems to be around $6-10/ton. Even short distance can be expensive, Utah to Cali is over $36

From LINK

The average annual sale prices of coal at mines by main rank of coal in 2017, in dollars per short ton (2,000 pounds)


  • Bituminous—$55.60
  • Subbituminous—$14.29
  • Lignite—$19.51
  • Anthracite—$93.17

Coal prices at surface mines are generally lower than prices at underground mines. In locations where coal beds are thick and near the surface, such as in Wyoming, mining costs and coal prices tend to be lower than in locations where the beds are thinner and deeper, such as in Appalachia. The higher cost of coal from underground mines reflects the more difficult mining conditions and the need for more miners.


...


Coal transportation costs can be significant

Once coal is mined, it must be transported to consumers. Transportation costs add to the delivered price of coal. In some cases, such as in long-distance shipments of Wyoming coal to power plants in the East, transportation costs are more than the price of coal at the mine.


Most coal is transported by train, barge, truck, or a combination of these modes. All of these transportation modes use diesel fuel. Increases in oil and diesel fuel prices can significantly affect the cost of transportation, which affects the final delivered price of coal.


In 2017, the national average sales price of coal at coal mines was $33.72 per short ton, and the average delivered coal price to the electric power sector was $39.09 per short ton, resulting in an average transportation cost of $5.37 per short ton, or about 14% of the delivered price.


Most coal is purchased for power plants

About 93% of the coal consumed in the United States is used to generate electricity. In 2017, about 30% of total U.S. electricity generation was from coal. When based only on the cost per million British thermal units (Btu), coal has been the least expensive fossil fuel used to generate electricity since 1976.

 
Fusion power has a funny consistency. It has always been two reactor types, 20 years and just a couple of billion dollars into the future.

Especially the 20 years has been the same since the early 80‘s.

It was 20 years away in the 1960s, too.
 
My understanding is that they realized that the Mirror Fusion Test Facility wasn't actually going to work and wasn't a plausible way forward to an actually functional reactor late enough in the construction process that it made more sense to finish it and shut it down rather than just cancel it immediately. @asnys knows more about this subject, I think...

Entirely possible, overall point is we'd at least be doing a lot more funding and research into it.
 

Lusitania

Donor
When people bring up France as an example of nuclear power (majority of its electricity is from nuclear vs other sources) need to understand France political and geographic location.

At end of the Suez Canal the French realized they could not expect or even wanted to live under American umbrella and decided to build their own nuclear industry and weapons.

At same time the war resulted in many Arab countries boycott the French for their attack on Egypt and the current French war in Algeria.

On top of these two factors we have limited hydro electric capabilities and like eastern US limited good quality domestic coal.

All these factors led the French in the 1960s to move towards nuclear power.
 
Entirely possible, overall point is we'd at least be doing a lot more funding and research into it.
It's probably fair to note that it wasn't just fusion that saw research budgets savaged in the 1980s, but also every other form of energy production and storage. So there are some strong tailwinds that are coming up. I think it's reasonable to say that the main ingredient needed for this or any other alternative energy scenario to come to pass is Reagan not being in the White House, since he had a very different perspective on the energy crisis than previous presidents did, i.e. a diplomatic and military instead of a technological approach. If Reagan is in the White House, there's only so much you can do to push alternative energy, since he and his administration sees their R&D programs as wasteful spending and doesn't want to pay for them.
 
Top