The Nuclear Power Thread

[Astronuc]

Waste, Families Left Behind As Nuclear Plants Close
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/24/498842677/waste-families-left-behind-as-nuclear-plants-close

Fort Calhoun Station's reactor, Unit 1, began in May 1973. Although licensed to 2033, the plant is shutting down Monday.
It's a relatively small reactor Licensed MWt: 1,500 with 133 assemblies of a 14x14 design.

http://www.omaha.com/money/today-fo...cle_0ff3a902-5cd6-52d8-a720-b2b9bc6ec0de.html

In 2016 alone, six nuke plants including Fort Calhoun have announced plans to shut down. All but one are closing years before their licensing terms expire.

A World-Herald analysis pegged Calhoun’s costs per megawatt-hour at about $71. The industry average for nuclear power operators is $35.50, and the natural gas oversupply has depressed the wholesale price for a megawatt-hour of electricity to as low as $20.

 

[mheslep]

From Astronuc's link:

“Unfortunately for the 700 people that are associated with the plant

Calhoun was a single reactor plant, 485 MWe, the smallest in the US. Run by the experienced Exelon. Why did it require a staff of 700? NRC has at least four people there full time.

Edit: IIRC, there are some dual reactor plants, 2 GWe, with staffs of ~500.

Newly completed https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/electricity/generation/fossil-fueled-power-stations/brunswick-county-power-station (capital cost <$1/W). Staffing: 43 people.

 

[anorlunda]

The industry average for nuclear power operators is $35.50, and the natural gas oversupply has depressed the wholesale price for a megawatt-hour of electricity to as low as $20.

Imagine yourself as an investor in a power plant. If the expected lifetime is 40 years, then you necessarily make assumptions about future costs and prices. Disrupting technologies like fracking are impossible to forecast in the far future.

In a rapidly changing world, low capital costs and rapid ROI appeal greatly to investors. That is the main threat to the future of the nuclear industry. To compete, nuclear needs designs that can be built, licensed, and put in operation in 12 months and with a planned retirement in 7 years.

BTW, even fusion power when it becomes feasible, must deal with the same capital/ROI issues.

BTW, looking forward 50 years, it is a real possibility that the business model of electric utilities and the central power grid will be in decline. In the 1970s, nobody could imagine the dissapearance of land line phones; Ma Bell seemed immortal.

No wonder that investors quake in their boots.

 

[mheslep]

Imagine yourself as an investor in a power plant. If the expected lifetime is 40 years, then you necessarily make assumptions about future costs and prices. Disrupting technologies like fracking are impossible to forecast in the far future.

In the US and Europe, I imagine the possible disruption from Gen IV (.i.e new cheap nuclear) is the most serious threat to existing big nuclear. Given its emissions, gas can replace coal and the oldest most expensive nuclear plants, but I doubt gas poses much threat to the majority of the US fleet with the pressure to reduce overall emissions. As big existing nuclear and the NRC have an interchange of people, the NRC has incentive to block new cheap nuclear

In a rapidly changing world, low capital costs and rapid ROI appeal greatly to investors. That is the main threat to the future of the nuclear industry.

...A threat to the the *US* nuclear industry where nuclear has capital costs to 5 or 6 times that of gas plants and have ~10 year build times. Not so much of a threat in China, S. Korea, where nuclear goes in in ~5 years with capital cost 2 times gas.

To compete, nuclear needs designs that can be built, licensed, and put in operation in 12 months and with a planned retirement in 7 years.

Nuclear need not be at exact par with gas build times and capital cost as even cheap US gas ($3 or $4/mmbtu) is several times more expensive per kwh than nuclear fuel. Planned retirement time can be many decades, a century, *if* the initial investment is low so investors get their money back early in the case of disruption via innovation.

 

[anorlunda]

Planned retirement time can be many decades, a century, *if*

Yeah sure. What corporation or agency in this world can be trusted to exist a century from now? What country is certain to exist in a century? (Other than Switzerland )

Having a nuke owner go bankrupt is a public risk. Posting bonds and insurance only mitigate some of the cases.

 

[mheslep]

Yeah sure. What corporation or agency in this world can be trusted to exist a century from now? What country is certain to exist in a century? (Other than Switzerland )

What difference does it make to the initial investor if they get there money back early? That is, how does the cheap plant differ from a building that lasts a hundred years, from the perspective of the investor? Buildings don't require 7 year closures.

Having a nuke owner go bankrupt is a public risk. Posting bonds and insurance only mitigate some of the cases.

If so it would be for existing nuke tech, not necessarily gen IV. Nuclear owners have gone bankrupt. Where did the follow up fall on the public?

 

[anorlunda]

Where did the follow up fall on the public?

Washington Public Power System

Besides, long term viability of the licensee is more an issue for the regulator than the investors. If someone walked in the door claiming a century design life, I don't think he would be seen as serious.

 

[mheslep]

Washington Public Power System

WPPSS was a case where the government issued municipal bonds for a plant that was never completed in the wake of TMI, not an operating nuclear plant where the owner failed and the government had to decommission and clean up. Govt risks capital anytime it finances a big project, sports stadium, bridge, etc. The nuclear industry pays into a fund to handle cleanup.

Besides, long term viability of the licensee is more an issue for the regulator than the investors. If someone walked in the door claiming a century design life, I don't think he would be seen as serious.

Theres already been a license granted for 60 years (60 + 20 more): Oyster Creek. I doubt 100 yrs is unthinkable for a plant with low overhead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_Creek_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Design

 

[Astronuc]

Calhoun was a single reactor plant, 485 MWe, the smallest in the US. Run by the experienced Exelon. Why did it require a staff of 700? NRC has at least four people there full time.

Ft. Calhoun had a number of problems before the flood and fire. The flood and fire just added to the list of things to be corrected. The article mentions that one of the workers, Brock Lindau, who has spent most of his career at the Fort Calhoun, helped install almost $700 million worth of upgrades that got the plant through a flood and a fire, and helped get it licensed to operate until 2033. I suspect many of the workers were there in order to complete the upgrades.

The benefit of dual or triple unit plants is that the same workers can rotate among the units. If a utility has the same reactor technology at multiple sites, then that saves on workers who can rotate among the different plants. When plants do reloads and heavy maintenance, or upgrades and plant modifications, the a contingent of contract workers participates for a limited time, e.g., a month or so. Many of the oldest plants, like Ft. Calhoun, were single units, and they are less economical to operate than a twin unit plant.

Nuclear owners have gone bankrupt. Where did the follow up fall on the public?

WPPSS defaulted on bonds. I think LILCO was close to bankruptcy over Shoreham, but the state intervened. I don't recall the involvement of LIPA and the state with LILCO, but taxpayers and LILCO customers bore a significant burden.

Interestingly, in 1988, the Public Service of New Hampshire declared bankruptcy due to lack of revenue to cover the costs of Seabrook. One of two units was completed and is operating at Seabrook.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/29/b...led-by-leading-utility-in-seabrook-plant.html

In 2014, Energy Future Holdings Corp. declared bankruptcy. EFH is the parent company of Luminant, which operates the Comanche Peak nuclear plant and TXU, which is the retail group. TXU may have to raise prices to consumers to offset the loss off revenue from reduced wholesale prices.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/bus...uptcy-prompts-consumer-worries-in-5440041.php

I'm not sure how Luminant and Comanche Peak are affected.

 

[mheslep]

The benefit of dual or triple unit plants is that the same workers can rotate among the units

That's a legitimate argument. Or, one can argue that it should also be possible to scale down the workforce at single reactor plants. If not, I would like to know how much of the staff is required by the NRC on a per plant basis. If the NRC requires, say, an unjustifiable couple dozen NRC employees at every plant, and requires a similar number of counterparts from the operator, then the ~300 MW SMR projects under development are not feasible.

 

[mheslep]

WPPSS defaulted on bonds...

Interestingly, in 1988, the Public Service of New Hampshire declared bankruptcy due to lack of revenue ...

In 2014, Energy Future Holdings Corp. declared bankruptcy...

Yes I am aware there were several well know failures of nuclear owners, and any publicly issued bond finance of the construction would go into default, as it would for any public bankruptcy. The discussion above was whether the decommissioning costs of a retired nuclear plant could fall to the public in event of bankruptcy. I'm unaware of any, and the industry funded NRC Decommssioning Fund is created to prevent this from happening.

 

[Astronuc]

Newly completed https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/electricity/generation/fossil-fueled-power-stations/brunswick-county-power-station (capital cost <$1/W). Staffing: 43 people.

That may be just operations. There is a previous statement - "Development and construction employs about 380 workers annually and yields about $824 million in economic benefits for the state." I don't know if that applies now that the plant is finished, since is uses present tense indefinite, rather than past as in 'employed'. Otherwise, the utility may use service contractors who would be on call, and don't count as employees.

They will do very well until gas prices start increasing at some point.

The discussion above was whether the decommissioning costs of a retired nuclear plant could fall to the public in event of bankruptcy. I'm unaware of any, and the industry funded NRC Decommssioning Fund is created to prevent this from happening.

I am unsure as well. As far as I know, the decommissioning fund is fixed and dedicated to decommissioning the plant.

According to NEI - "These nuclear decommissioning trust funds are not the property of the electric utility. They are outside the electric utility’s control. In bankruptcy situations, for example, decommissioning trust funds cannot be used to satisfy creditors’ claims."
http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-...acts-About-Nuclear-Decommissioning-Trust-Fund

 

[mheslep]

That may be just operations.

There's likely a roving, plant to plant, periodic maintenance crew, but after construction is complete, what else is there? No daily reports to the NRC for the staff of a gas plant.

Otherwise, the utility may use service contractors who would be on call, and don't count as employees.

Yes, on call. Calhoun had 700 employees.

 

[Astronuc]

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016 (HTML)
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2016-HTML.html

The China Effect
• Nuclear power generation in the world increased by 1.3%, entirely due to a 31% increase in China.

• Ten reactors started up in 2015—more than in any other year since 1990—of which eight were in China. Construction on all of them started prior to the Fukushima disaster.

• Eight construction starts in the world in 2015—to which China contributed six—down from 15 in 2010 of which 10 were in China. No construction starts in the world in the first half of 2016.

• The number of units under construction is declining for the third year in a row, from 67 reactors at the end of 2013 to 58 by mid-2016, of which 21 are in China.

• China spent over US$100 billion on renewables in 2015, while investment decisions for six nuclear reactors amounted to US$18 billion.

Even with an aggressive nuclear energy program, China is investing a lot more in wind, hydro and other renewables.

The down side

Early Closures, Phase-outs and Construction Delays
• Eight early closure decisions taken in Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the U.S.

• Nuclear phase-out announcements in the U.S. (California) and Taiwan.

• In nine of the 14 building countries all projects are delayed, mostly by several years. Six projects have been listed for over a decade, of which three for over 30 years. China is no exception here, at least 10 of 21 units under construction are delayed.

Nuclear Giants in Crisis – Renewables Take Over
• AREVA has accumulated US$11 billion in losses over the past five years. French government decides €5.6 billion bailout and breaks up the company. Share value 95 percent below 2007 peak value. State utility EDF struggles with US41.5 billion debt, downgraded by S&P. Chinese utility CGN, EDF partner for Hinkley Point C, loses 60% of its share value since June 2015.

• Globally, wind power output grew by 17%, solar by 33%, nuclear by 1.3%.

• Brazil, China, India, Japan and the Netherlands now all generate more electricity from wind turbines alone than from nuclear power plants.

The crisis with AREVA is old news since 2015.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015 (HTML)
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2015-HTML.html

Nebraska Reactor Fort Calhoun Closes Permanently
25 October 2016 - http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Nebraska-Reactor-Fort-Calhoun-Closes-Permanently.html

Pacific Gas & Electric has agreed to shutdown Diablo Canyon
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nuclear-power-pacific-gas-20160811-snap-story.html
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-PGE-to-close-Diablo-Canyon-nuclear-plant-by-2025-22061601.html

Japanese Government Pulls the Plug on Fast Breeder Reactor Monju
Friday 23 December 2016 - http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Japanese-Government-Pulls-the-Plug-on-Fast-Breeder-Reactor-Monju.html

 

[mheslep]

Even with an aggressive nuclear energy program, China is investing a lot more in wind, hydro and other renewables.

As with everywhere else, when very large 'renewable' figures are mentioned, the large majority turns out to be hydro projects with thousand mile transmission lines, or biomass combustion plants, and not so much wind or solar. Chinese hydro is increasingly some 100 TWh per year, wind is a 5th of that. I don't believe there is a great cry for the US to build more hydro projects because China does, nor burn up trees at 8GW because Germany does.

 

[mheslep]

number of environmental organizations and labor unions joined PG&E in the proposal to close both units at the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility near San Luis Osbispo by 2025.

Confirming that some "environmental organizations" have some other agenda besides clean air. They state that some collection of renewable sources will replace Diablo. Instead, in the aftermath of the SONGS closure:

A new wave of natural gas power plants planned for Southern California has stoked a high-stakes debate about how best to keep the lights on throughout the region...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...rojects-spark-debate-2016may23-htmlstory.html
.

 

[mheslep]

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016 (HTML)

Astro - I believe this so called industry status report is written by anti-nuclear activists.

http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Who-We-Are.html

 

[nikkkom]

As with everywhere else, when very large 'renewable' figures are mentioned, the large majority turns out to be hydro projects with thousand mile transmission lines

What is the problem with a thousand mile transmission line? Losses? They are only around 5% for AC, 3.5% for DC.

 

[gmax137]

What is the problem with a thousand mile transmission line? ...

Neglecting losses, which I think you underestimate, other problems: Cost between one and two million USD per mile, theft of private property under "eminent domain," degraded visual landscape...

 

[anorlunda]

Astro - I believe this so called industry status report is written by anti-nuclear activists.

http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Who-We-Are.html

I read the bios of the people listed on that link. You're absolutely right. They should not be given much trust at all.

However, the raw data on startups and closures posted by @Astronuc are a matter of public record that anyone can verify. Unless they were cherry picked to omit numerous startups/closures, that kind of data is hard to fake.

 

[OmCheeto]

Neglecting losses, which I think you underestimate, other problems: Cost between one and two million USD per mile...

hmmmm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie
Pacific DC Intertie
600,000 $/day savings because of the intertie [wiki]
219,145,320 $/year savings [maths]
846 miles length [wiki]
2,000,000 $/mile [gmax137]
1,692,000,000 $ construction cost [maths]
7.721 years payback [maths]​

7.7 years sounds like a reasonable payback time for a large project.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=15131
2013
268,000,000,000 $/yr net crude oil imports [eia]
734,000,000 $/day net crude oil imports [maths]
1,692,000,000 $/project construction cost of 846 mile DC intertie [maths]
2.3 equivalent days of crude oil imports to pay for construction of the Pacific DC Intertie [maths]​

2.3 days... Wow.
Your monetary argument therefore strikes me as silly.
As do your other two arguments, which are, IMHO, not even worth discussing.

--------------

But, getting somewhat more back on topic...
I watched a video the other day, where a professor was discussing Thorium reactors. I thought it was very interesting

Thorium (new) - Periodic Table of Videos

Published on Mar 21, 2016
Thorium, element 90 on the periodic table.​

Professor Sir Martyn Poliakoff:

@7:41; "I suspect that if nuclear power had been started for civilian use that the cost would have been prohibitive and people might never have used nuclear power"

@8:19;"...it would be much more feasible now to go on to the thorium cycle than it would have been in the nineteen forties."​

 

[Astronuc]

Astro - I believe this so called industry status report is written by anti-nuclear activists.

http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Who-We-Are.html

I wouldn't say they are anti-nuclear activists, as much as they are in energy policy and research. Several seem to have had involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle area. They are certainly critical of nuclear energy, and reasonably so. As anorlunda, the data on startups and closures are readily available, and anyone contemplating going into nuclear energy should be aware of the situation and the bigger picture regarding energy and infrastructure policy.

As for long transmission lines, one can find those across the US, particularly in the west. Power can be 'wheeled' across the nation, but that is usually balanced with regional generation, much like putting water in at one end of a long lake (or river) and extracting at the other end. One can find plenty of transmission lines associated with hydro and wind generation along the Columbia river - both in Washington and Oregon, and some of that goes to California.

Regarding hydropower in the US, if anything, there is a movement to reduce the number of dams on some river systems. One goal is the revival of fishing resources.

Some perspective on NW US energy generation and exchange with California. (See pages 2-9 (bottom) through 2-11)
https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/7149936/7thplanfinal_chap02_stateofthesystem.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Neglecting losses, which I think you underestimate, other problems: Cost between one and two million USD per mile, theft of private property under "eminent domain," degraded visual landscape...

The most recently completed HVDC project in N. America had cost $6 million per GW mile (eastern Alberta). I referenced transmission above in the Chinese case because they are building hydro in the west with long transmission runs, which could double the total cost of a dam project, something to consider when weighing against new nuclear power.

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't say they are anti-nuclear activists, as much as they are in energy policy and research. Several seem to have had involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle area.

When I review this and past Status Reports, I find the lead authors are Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt, and have been for years. Per his bio, Froggatt has no degree in hard science or engineering. For twenty years, Schneider (see 'about the author' here) was an executive director of WISE, with slogan "imagine a world without nuclear power". The 2015 Status Report was supported by the http://NRDC , the Swiss Renewable Energy Foundation, then the Greens-EFA from the EU. The Status Report in 2013 featured a forward from the avidly anti-nuclear Amory Lovins (2010), and in past years was commissioned by the Greens-EFA group in Europe (2004 & 2007), the anti-nuclear German Federal Ministry of Environment (2009)

They are certainly critical of nuclear energy, and reasonably so. As anorlunda, the data on startups and closures are readily available, and anyone contemplating going into nuclear energy should be aware of the situation and the bigger picture regarding energy and infrastructure policy.

There are 58-60 reactors currently under construction across 14 countries. With average power 1 GW/ reactor, they'll produce 480 TWh/yr of emissions-free power at the plant. A couple weeks ago the US NRC licensed another new 2-reactor plant in S. Carolina. Granted the industry has its problems, like the pending closure of Diablo, but why should an objective view necessarily be "critical"?

As for long transmission lines, one can find those across the US, particularly in the west. Power can be 'wheeled' across the nation, but that is usually balanced with regional generation, much like putting water in at one end of a long lake (or river) and extracting at the other end. One can find plenty of transmission lines associated with hydro and wind generation along the Columbia river - both in Washington and Oregon, and some of that goes to California.

Yes long distance transmission exists in the US and elsewhere. However, new land based transmission proposals in the US are also sometimes rejected after many years, even decades, before acquiring interstate right of way, and the most recently completed HVDC project in N. America ( across sparsely populated Alberta) had cost $6 million per GW-mile. At that price, replacing one of the pending east coast nuclear plants (2.2GW) with, say, Midwest power across a 1000 miles has cost $13B. Shipping intermittent power through those lines equivalent to the average output of a nuclear plant makes them still more problematic

Regarding hydropower in the US, if anything, there is a movement to reduce the number of dams on some river systems. One goal is the revival of fishing resources.

Agreed. It is unlikely that hydro power capacity will expand in the developed world. And, given hydro is by far the dominate share of 'renewable' power, when Status Report touts large renewable figures as trending, when hydro expansion has the limits you describe, I believe they are being deceptive.

 

[Delta Force]

Agreed. It is unlikely that hydro power capacity will expand in the developed world. And, given hydro is by far the dominate share of 'renewable' power, when Status Report touts large renewable figures as trending, when hydro expansion has the limits you describe, I believe they are being deceptive.

It's worth noting that hydropower and natural gas are the only two technologies capable of integrating the more variable forms of renewable energy into a power grid. If hydropower and nuclear energy aren't able to maintain their current contributions that does provide an opening for new power sources in the United States electricity market, which has been stagnant for many years (growth in natural gas and renewable generation is largely zero sum and associated with declines in coal). The question is what will fill that gap, renewable power or natural gas, or more precisely at what ratio, because renewable power systems still need integrating power and still need firm power.

 

[anorlunda]

It's worth noting that hydropower and natural gas are the only two technologies capable of integrating the more variable forms of renewable energy into a power grid. If hydropower and nuclear energy aren't able to maintain their current contributions that does provide an opening for new power sources in the United States electricity market, which has been stagnant for many years (growth in natural gas and renewable generation is largely zero sum and associated with declines in coal). The question is what will fill that gap, renewable power or natural gas, or more precisely at what ratio, because renewable power systems still need integrating power and still need firm power.

Future behavior of that ratio is as unknowable as future prices on the stock market. The reasons why are largely the same as for the stock market. It is a collective result of many individual economic and political decisions. You posted your question on an engineering forum, but engineering considerations only pay a minor role.

Are you interested in energy futures trading?

 

[Delta Force]

Future behavior of that ratio is as unknowable as future prices on the stock market. The reasons why are largely the same as for the stock market. It is a collective result of many individual economic and political decisions. You posted your question on an engineering forum, but engineering considerations only pay a minor role.

Are you interested in energy futures trading?

I'm giving a landscape level view of things, the next decade or two will certainly be interesting for nuclear power in the energy portfolio of the United States and many other early adopters. I'm not sure if that's something anyone would be interested in here, since it isn't exactly engineering of course.

I should mention that I'm trained in energy policy, not engineering or physics. Political decision-making is definitely one of the factors that goes into the economics of energy, but engineering still plays a major role.

 

[anorlunda]

Political decision-making is definitely one of the factors that goes into the economics of energy, but engineering still plays a major role

In a deregulated world, politicians and engineers can write all the energy plans they want, but who will follow those plans?

Imagine calling some wind power developers to say, "Our energy plan calls for more gas generation at that location, not wind. Please build a natural gas plant instead of wind.". That is no longer the way things work in the real world. Independent developers of wind, solar or fossil don't take orders. Government can create incentives and hurdles, but it can't issue orders.

 

[etudiant]

In a deregulated world, politicians and engineers can write all the energy plans they want, but who will follow those plans?

Imagine calling some wind power developers to say, "Our energy plan calls for more gas generation at that location, not wind. Please build a natural gas plant instead of wind.". That is no longer the way things work in the real world. Independent developers of wind, solar or fossil don't take orders. Government can create incentives and hurdles, but it can't issue orders.

I think that underestimates the many levers of influence the government wields in practice.
Wind energy for instance can be crippled in the US simply by enforcing the Endangered Species Act, which permits large scale 'takings' of endangered large raptors such as the Golden Eagle. Similar methods could shut down solar or fossil fuel plants, there are many regulations available to halt developments.
The obverse is that it is very difficult to get the private sector to do the things government would like just by incentives and hurdles. Private enterprise will always find a way to thread the regulatory needle to optimum effect, which may be quite different from the ideas of the regulators.

 

[wizwom]

In a deregulated world, politicians and engineers can write all the energy plans they want, but who will follow those plans?

Without regulation, the Engineers planning would be the power company engineers, and their company would follow the plan. They would buy what power they wanted when they chose to, and otherwise protect their interests and arrange for the stability of their grid.
If they are ASKED what they want by a producer, they will gladly share their estimates. You know... everyone doing things voluntarily, because no one has guns involved.

Imagine calling some wind power developers to say, "Our energy plan calls for more gas generation at that location, not wind. Please build a natural gas plant instead of wind.". That is no longer the way things work in the real world. Independent developers of wind, solar or fossil don't take orders. Government can create incentives and hurdles, but it can't issue orders.

They would not say to a wind farm "our plan calls for such and so" - they would merely buy or not from the farm as they need and the farm produces. And if the farm cannot run stably (which is typical) then they would put in their own stable power, and not buy the wind power. because, you knoiw, they have the power needs covered already, thanks.
So, if the wind farm reworks to have instant-on gas (at their own expense) and can meet the stability needs, then they can start selling again. Or they can hope.
Similar with solar.
I suspect in such a regime, wind would power local or remote pumped hydro, which would sell the actual power to the grid; the mass wind would never hook up to the grid. Solar might be hoooked up, especially in the summer, since it ramps up somewhat in line with AC need.
But in such a system nuclear would far and away conquer baseload power.