Ice Story CBS Boston

John Mercier · 12-08-2023, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Seabrook's reactor is approx 1200 MW/h so it can support close to a million homes. Transmission lines would be needed if they had built Seabrook Unit 2 as originally planned.

Nuclear is a solid, carbon free power source so we need to have it as part of our US energy strategy at least for the short-term. It is very difficult to bring new units online in the US. Vogtle brought their first Westinghouse AP1000 on line in GA a year or so ago. It can be done but it is pricy!

https://www.georgiapower.com/company/plant-vogtle.html

We can't expect that the residents of Seabrook and the surrounding area, fairly densely populated, would put up with the new build out since we allowed the residents of sparsely populated Coos and Grafton county to not have to deal with the transmission lines.

So it really isn't about the price... it is about the NIMBY politics.

Since we have to deal with the current infrastructure and only small changes (don't even try to trim a tree near the lines)... the strategy is to use the current infrastructure more efficiently.

BroadHopper · 12-09-2023, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We can't expect that the residents of Seabrook and the surrounding area, fairly densely populated, would put up with the new build out since we allowed the residents of sparsely populated Coos and Grafton county to not have to deal with the transmission lines.

So it really isn't about the price... it is about the NIMBY politics.

Since we have to deal with the current infrastructure and only small changes (don't even try to trim a tree near the lines)... the strategy is to use the current infrastructure more efficiently.

I agree with the NIMBY politics. What happened to Seabrook 2? That would surely shut down the Bow plant but no! NIMBY! There was a plan to convert Bow from coal to NG, but no! No transmission pipes! NIMBY! Plus, the hydroelectric energy from Canada to replace the fossil burners! No! NIMBY!

If we want to put a dent in pollution, we should concentrate on the Big Three polluters who have no intent on clean energy, India, Nigeria, and the ocean commercial cargo barges which burn the dirtiest oil.

John Mercier · 12-09-2023, 01:50 PM

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.

rsmlp · 12-09-2023, 04:08 PM

I wouldn't want to own a ski resort...at least on margin!

John Mercier · 12-09-2023, 10:37 PM

Almost all of them can make snow...

The data isn't that it doesn't fall below freezing ever.

12-09-2023, 04:08 PM	#4
rsmlp Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 475 Thanks: 5 Thanked 164 Times in 84 Posts	here's what I know I wouldn't want to own a ski resort...at least on margin!

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to John Mercier For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (12-09-2023), Fishy Cover (12-09-2023)

12-09-2023, 01:50 PM	#3
John Mercier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 3,422 Thanks: 3 Thanked 600 Times in 496 Posts	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.

The Following User Says Thank You to John Mercier For This Useful Post:
Cobalt 12 (12-09-2023)

12-09-2023, 10:37 PM	#5
John Mercier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 3,422 Thanks: 3 Thanked 600 Times in 496 Posts	Almost all of them can make snow... The data isn't that it doesn't fall below freezing ever.