I traded a hell of a lot of megawatts, transmission, and fuels for Commonwealth Edison’s Trading Group in the 1990’s - I’m a Nuclear Engineer by training. I would have been much happier to see a policy that emphasized the transmission grid and the newest design modular passive safety system nuclear power plants. I understand why Trump wants to protect the last vestiges of coal generation, but I do not agree with it. It is a filthy environmentally hazardous carcinogenic way to produce power. There are so few coal fired plants left that quite honestly I think that this is simply a goodwill gesture to certain of his constituents and IMO the impact is a bit exaggerated as far as coal is concerned. I am very concerned that the baseload genaration stack is rapidly becoming monolithic with NG. If you lose a pipeline or storage that could be an issue. Renewables can make for lousy baseload - ask anyone who’s traded ERCOT. The latest generation designs of modular design passive safety system Nuclear Power plants would make excellent baseload generation if located away from seismic areas, coastal areas, and population centers BUT like all other nuclear plants built in the past they won’t get built without government help. Safe spent fuel storage is not a technical issue - it’s a political issue for the uninformed. There are serious capacity factor issues around renewables, and to replace Nuclear completely with renewables would require more physical space and storage than anyone’s prepared to give IMO. While more expensive than NG, I could get behind supporting lifecycle extensions for a few existing reactors with NRC approval - but that is a limited and finite resource and it won’t buy a great deal of time. I just don’t see how we get to zero carbon and greenhouse gas power generation in any sort of expeditious timeframe without Nuclear. My 2 cents, fwiw.
and how did the CO2 scam penetrate so deep into the energy industry? doesn't take much brain to figure out the big fire ball in the sky has a lot more to do with weather than a few ppm of CO2. here we are arguing coal vs. NG.... the much bigger waste is in the billions of handouts to the renewables.
You are absolutely right. The sun has more to do with the weather than CO2 does. Now perhaps you could take a few minutes and go learn the difference between weather and climate.
I’ll double down here - hell, going with the latest design modular nuclear power plants with passive safety systems are going to get us to zero carbon and zero greenhouse gas emission power generation MUCH faster than carbon credits or a carbon tax scheme IMO. Plus, a mix of nuclear baseload with renewables for power generation would make electric cars truly and legitimately superior to gasoline ULEV’s. Which they aren’t now.
I totally agree, but with Westinghouse's new reactors division going bankrupt and increased regulatory challenges for lifecycle extensions and power uprates I don't see how we are going to get there. Nuclear plants have been closing at a high rate lately: Crystal River breaking containment, San Onofre getting dealt bum-dope steam generators, general mis-management at Fort Calhoun, Kewaunee closing, and now Davis Besse is going to close? (I mean they can't have THAT much boric acid left on their vessel head). Oyster Creek, Clinton, Quad Cities, Seabrook, Perry (I'm sure I'm leaving out a few here) are all either on the chopping block or close to it. And that is not even mentioning how everyone is scared beyond all reason of radiation. It is an uphill battle I'm afraid even though I agree with you that enhanced nuclear and renewables would be the bees knees.
Chill - using the terms loosely here... solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles are multi-year/multi-decade events.
So we'll assume that you now realize that Trump's attempt to nationalize coal plants flies in the face of everything you say you believe in. This plan literally blows up all the wholesale power markets. All the electricity used in the country gets more expensive and the market for it less efficient with this, hundreds of billions of dollars. What are you going to do about it? Deflect into a tangential argument against global warming and against renewables, which as I clearly demonstrated have really nothing to do with these coal plant shutdowns? Something you also clearly know fuckall about but seem to be absolutely sure of yourself on, how did that work out for you last time? Again, look in a mirror dude, have you lost your mind? Are you a slave to your tribe? Can you think for yourself?
You’re being overly hyperbolic and a bit dramatic about what Trump’s policy [if even enacted as he proposes, which I doubt; FERC has a say in the implementation of the matter] does and does not do IMO. And it won’t “blow up” the wholesale power markets. I bought power from TVA all the time. As much as I could in fact.
First off great to discuss with someone who knows a ton about this. A couple of point so of pushback. First the statement "Renewables can make for lousy baseload - ask anyone who’s traded ERCOT." You know that ERCOT is one of the two ISOs that doesn't have a capacity market. You also know that the ISOs that do have capacity markets have been seeing record low prices for capacity, in fact as I mentioned earlier the failure of a bunch of FirstEnergy's coal and nuclear plants to clear the capacity auctions is why they convinced DOER and Trump to go down this path in the first place. So could it be, just maybe, that the lack of a capacity market is causing the issues you've observed in ERCOT, not renewables per se? I mean if you set up the right market mechanism to incent it, the big IPPs can throw down gigawatts of simple cycle gas for pennies to firm up their renewables intermittency and that problem goes away, no need for batteries or any other crazy storage stuff. They just aren't incented to do it in ERCOT because of their conscious (and damn proud of it, just ask 'em) decision not to have a capacity market. As for nuclear, I'm torn on that. I agree, if you really want to get to zero carbon you can't use those simple cycle gas plants and either need nuclear or storage and storage isn't there yet. First I'm not sure we need to get to zero, the cost curve is asymptotic as you get to zero and the majority of the benefits accrue with the first 75%. Second, nuclear plants are shutting down now because they can't operate at a profit. We're talking a plant that would cost $22 billion to build (lookin at you Santee Cooper), if I gave it to you tomorrow for free already built you'd still shut it down because even absent the build costs you'd be losing money on every MWH you produced based on operating costs alone (Don't get me started on the bs comparison of renewables cost/MWH based on amortized build costs while using the operating and fuel costs alone for coal and nuclear). Are the latest nuclear plants, or even the next generation after the latest, that much cheaper to operate than current plants? If not, they still lose to gas absent subsidy and unlike renewables the subsidy doesn't run them down the cost curve much. Solar has gone from $8/watt to sub $1/watt in 10 years with minimal operating costs, not gonna happen for nuclear.
Actually the scary part is that FERC doesn't have a say in it if they go the 202(c) route. "But Wellinghoff said FERC’s approval authority over cost recovery rates under 202(c) is more of an implementation step and would not allow the commission to block any proposed subsidies. “It's a very formulaic process. It's not like there's a lot of discretion when they get to that point,” he said." And under the Defense Production Act the government seriously just nationalizes the plants, i.e. buys their production at above market rates. FERC has no say over that. And yes, it will blow up the PJM and NEPOOL markets. TVA isn't a market, there's nothing to destroy there. You can't have 50% of your generation capacity on cost recovery and simultaneously have an operating meaningful day ahead and hour ahead power market, let alone a meaningful capacity market, you know that!