View Single Post
Old 12-09-2023, 01:50 PM   #16
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,055
Thanks: 2
Thanked 531 Times in 437 Posts
Default

There were cost overruns building the first reactor, so the second... I believe... is available to be finished off and activated should the first be shuttered.

The transmission infrastructure can handle the output generated one at a time.

But since we are no longer building transmission, the second would not even be considered until the first was in the process of being decommissioned, and then the owner of record at that time would consider the financials of outfitting number two and placing it into operation.

Number One had to be subsidized because the cost of NG generation was so low and the thermal efficiency was so high.

We also have some smaller generation sites left over due to the decision not to expand the subsidies to biomass generation. Biomass, unfortunately, directly competes with the concept of wood and pellet stove fuel; the government chose to subsidize those instead of burning the biomass for electricity. The State subsidizing one format (electric generation) and the federal government subsidizing the other (Inflation Reduction Act) was an incoherent strategy.

But we are not going to stop India, or even ourselves... it is really more a matter of adapting to the change.
The change being exponential rather than arithmetic is a challenge, but it is a challenge we don't get a choice to avoid.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to John Mercier For This Useful Post: