Despite 'Economic Distress', Two US Nuclear Power Plants Saved From Closing Through Subsidies (mystateline.com) 128
Slashdot reader oumuamua writes that two U.S. nuclear plants owned by Exelon "were almost shutdown prematurely...but were saved at the last minute by the Illinois Senate."
The Illinois Senate has approved a clean energy deal which includes a subsidy for Exelon to keep the Byron nuclear plant in operation, after the House passed it last week.
The plan gives Exelon $694 million to keep the Byron and Dresden plants operational. Exelon had previously begun drawing down the Byron plant with an anticipated retirement date of Monday, September 13th, and had warned that once the nuclear fuel had been depleted, it could not be refueled after that date.
Exelon said Monday that with the passage of the bill, it was preparing to refuel both plants.
The company had actually intended to close the Byron plant for some time, according to an earlier article: In February of 2019, a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Exelon said the plant is "showing increased signs of economic distress, which could lead to an early retirement, in a market that does not currently compensate them for their unique contribution to grid resiliency and their ability to produce large amounts of energy without carbon and air pollution." Exelon cited revenue shortfalls in the hundreds of millions of dollars because of declining energy prices and energy rules that allow fossil fuel plants to make cheaper bids at energy auction.
Or, as another article puts it, "Exelon says its Byron and Dresden stations are losing money."
oumuamua adds that "With the urgency of the climate crisis more clear than ever, no nuclear plant should be closed prematurely while coal plants continue operation in the same state. Many celebrated the Senate move, however, others have criticized Exelon's actions. "Exelon first started what we've dubbed the nuclear hostage crisis. It's a pattern where a utility will for whatever reasons threaten closure, which gets the workers very upset, then the local community whose tax base depends on it gets upset, they pressure their legislators, and then the legislators grant bailouts," said Dave Kraft, head of the Nuclear Energy Information Service.
Kraft said rather than continuing to support nuclear energy, Illinois needs to redouble its commitment to wind and solar.
The plan gives Exelon $694 million to keep the Byron and Dresden plants operational. Exelon had previously begun drawing down the Byron plant with an anticipated retirement date of Monday, September 13th, and had warned that once the nuclear fuel had been depleted, it could not be refueled after that date.
Exelon said Monday that with the passage of the bill, it was preparing to refuel both plants.
The company had actually intended to close the Byron plant for some time, according to an earlier article: In February of 2019, a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Exelon said the plant is "showing increased signs of economic distress, which could lead to an early retirement, in a market that does not currently compensate them for their unique contribution to grid resiliency and their ability to produce large amounts of energy without carbon and air pollution." Exelon cited revenue shortfalls in the hundreds of millions of dollars because of declining energy prices and energy rules that allow fossil fuel plants to make cheaper bids at energy auction.
Or, as another article puts it, "Exelon says its Byron and Dresden stations are losing money."
oumuamua adds that "With the urgency of the climate crisis more clear than ever, no nuclear plant should be closed prematurely while coal plants continue operation in the same state. Many celebrated the Senate move, however, others have criticized Exelon's actions. "Exelon first started what we've dubbed the nuclear hostage crisis. It's a pattern where a utility will for whatever reasons threaten closure, which gets the workers very upset, then the local community whose tax base depends on it gets upset, they pressure their legislators, and then the legislators grant bailouts," said Dave Kraft, head of the Nuclear Energy Information Service.
Kraft said rather than continuing to support nuclear energy, Illinois needs to redouble its commitment to wind and solar.
6 year extension (Score:4, Informative)
Accoding TFA this investment keeps both pants operating until 2028, so approx $50m per plant per year. Not a terrible deal when you break it down.
Real question is could two new nuclear plants be constructed and certified in that timespan or even before 2030? While I support this measure the Dresden plant is 50 years old this year (commisioned 1971) and the Byron plant 36 years old. These thing's can't run forever and they can't simply be replaced with wind/solar.
Would be a good IMO to couple these state measures with Federal assistance that would also bring on newer reactors in time with the de-commision of these older units.
Re:6 year extension (Score:4, Insightful)
These thing's can't run forever and they can't simply be replaced with wind/solar.
Assuming solar [youtu.be] or wind [youtu.be] is static in it's progress. Ten years is a long time.
Wind and solar rules! (Score:2, Insightful)
Strictly on an cost per installed kW capacity, even taking into account the "capacity factor", wind dominates and solar is not far behind.
Thing is, if you are getting your heat from an electric heat pump, are you OK having your power turned off if it gets cloudy and the wind stops blowing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would it be off if I'm connected to a grid? You know, the same one a nuclear plant is suppose to be connected to. As well as all the solar and wind. That's kind of the point of grids.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point was that we can't just go with purely solar & wind as a replacement for nuclear, just because they're cheaper per kwh of nameplate capacity.
If the nukes get decomissioned eventually without replacement, with purely renewable power, and our lack of any serious storage capacity, there'd basically be no power on a windless evening.
So, the options are:
1) Install a shit-ton of batteries. Like a really enormous amount, no idea if it's really feasible
2) Build new nuclear plants
3) Build new na
Re: (Score:2)
3) Build new natural gas plants
And so far, everyone seems to be happily going with #3 even though it goes against the whole global warming efforts.
It only does that if they are on a significant amount of the time. If they are not, it is helping against global warming. It's then a case of doing things like balancing the cost of nuclear, storage, gas, renewables and the overall carbon footprint using various mixes of them and seeing which achieves the best balance of reducing CO2 output versus cost based on metrics such as what people are prepared to tolerate in terms of things like retail cost of power. And I'd also throw in 'negawatts' in - i.e. if yo
Re: (Score:2)
If they're not on most of the time, they won't be built. They would never return the investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If proper internalization of carbon emissions is implemented, I would expect nuclear for much of the base load and legacy gas plants for peaking. In time, renewables would take over some of it with various storage added in for peaking. The existing gas plants would simply age out.
Re: (Score:2)
If proper internalization of carbon emissions is implemented, I would expect nuclear for much of the base load and legacy gas plants for peaking. In time, renewables would take over some of it with various storage added in for peaking. The existing gas plants would simply age out.
The problem with nuclear for any worldwide adoption on a large scale is that the available of positive EROEI uranium won't last long enough. And also it takes a lot of specialist skills to build a nuclear power plant compared to a wind turbine so scaling the building of them would require an subsidised effort. Getting capital markets to invest would be difficult given those two factors. Also, with proper internalisation of carbon emission costs I'd have thought there would still be a lot of renewables being
Re: (Score:2)
The uranium will last plenty long. Our current reactors in the U.S. are wasting 95% of the fuel due to the once through cycle. With the right design, we could go a couple decades just further utilizing the "waste" we have. That's even assuming we don't build a few breeder reactors to make all that depleted uranium useful. Then there's the much more plentiful thorium.
In any event, we need some nuclear to produce radioisotopes used in industry and medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
The uranium will last plenty long.
If you assume expansion of current designs across the world, the uranium will last a decent amount of time, but EROEI positive is not so clear.
Our current reactors in the U.S. are wasting 95% of the fuel due to the once through cycle. With the right design, we could go a couple decades just further utilizing the "waste" we have.
Yes, the USA is unusual in not reprocessing. But we're talking about demand within the world, not the USA, affecting the availability of fissionable uranium.
That's even assuming we don't build a few breeder reactors to make all that depleted uranium useful.
Not proven to be commercially viable.
Then there's the much more plentiful thorium.
Not proven to be commercially viable and requires new designs, so will take a couple of decades before meaningful production begins unless you posit something radical changing
Re: (Score:2)
g. Our current reactors in the U.S. are wasting 95% of the fuel due to the once through cycle.
That is wrong.
95% of the fuel can not even be "burned". Because you do not have CANDU reactors. So: roughly 50% or 50% of the remaining 5% are "wasted". Because it is cheaper to simple reprocess fresh ore than reusing the old fuel.
If that was unclear: fuel consists of 95% "non burnable" uranium, and about 5% burnable. When those burnable 5% are educed to 2.5% or 2%, the reactor gets refueled.
It is a stupid america
Re: (Score:2)
So build a CANDU reactor or something else that can burn the "waste". Or re-process the waste into something U.S. reactors can use. There are other benefits to burning the plutonium in the "waste" as well. Quit playing semantic games as an excuse to call people stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Or re-process the waste into something U.S. reactors can use.
That makes economically no sense, that is why they are not doing it. And you still had 50% of the original waste + all the chemicals that are now contaminated during the reprocessing process.
Quit playing semantic games as an excuse to call people stupid.
It is not semantic if you obviously do not know what waste is and obviously do not know that waste itself, can not be "burned" in standard reactors. It is simply stupid ignorance. Because: you coul
Re: (Score:2)
More semantic games. If by "waste" we mean what is currently removed from a light water reactor and not further used, then YES, a large portion of it can be burned in a CANDU or other existing reactor designs. Further, there is a fairly simple method of processing that results in a mixture of actinides that can be fuel for a suitably configured reactor. I have explained this to you before but you apparently beat yourself over the head with a brick so you could forget it and again feel justified in calling o
Re: (Score:2)
then YES, a large portion of it can be burned in a CANDU or other existing reactor designs
In a CANDU, yes.
In a other reactor designs: nope.
Sorry, are you really that stupid.
NOPE, you can not burn any waste of your standard American reactor designs in another reactor in USA.
If you could: you would do it, that is simple economics.
And the fact that you can not do it: is simpy physics.
Astonishing you suck at both.
Look it up on google and learn something or remain ignorant. I don't really care.
Exactly: Look it u
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, it would be utterly impossible to build a CANDU in the U.S. ever for the remainder of life on earth because you have decreed it to be so. Likewise, the designs in use now are the only possible designs for the rest of time. Is that really the hill you want to die on just for the sake of calling someone stupid?
If your need is so strong, may I suggest you get a full length mirror? That will make it easy.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, it would be utterly impossible to build a CANDU in the U.S.
The point is: you do not have a CANDU right now.
Hence your idea about what is waste and how to use it - is irrelevant (despite the fact that you did not know what a CANDU is or what "waste is" or how much in the "fuel" actually is "fuel" a week ago. Did you actually read it up? - I guess you did not, as the rest of your post sounds rather insulting to me :P But you know: I'm a snowflake - (*cry*) )
Re: (Score:2)
Since this whole discussion was about the future and possibilities, your claims are irrelevant. Did you fail to find a good full-length mirror? Keep trying...
I'm sure Bert and Ernie probably covered the difference between now and later, perhaps you can fine a Youtube video.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually: no idea what a "full length mirror" is.
No idea what Bert and Ernie have to do with it.
And: you most certainly did not talk about the future when you made the ridiculous - typical /. claim - we would be better off if we would not throw away 95% of the fuel of a reactor as waste. Because: at that point in time you did not even know about CANDU and what waste is. Sorry: get an education. I know you are old. Probably as old as 'Im (unlikely) but you still can learn.
Re: (Score:2)
I have known about CANDU reactors for many years. I am well aware of what waste is. RE mirror, Bert, Ernie, Google can be your friend.
All of this from someone who couldn't manage to look up actinides on a periodic chart.
Really, look up full length mirror. You could really use one. If you gave it some thought, you could probably guess correctly. But then, if you could give things thought, you wouldn't have made an ass of yourself again.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this from someone who couldn't manage to look up actinides on a periodic chart.
You are just silly, i mixed up the word at that time, and we actually talked about it, and I fixed the error. I meant "fission product" - and that was pretty clear from the context anyway.
I'm not interested in your mirror metaphor, nor Sesame-Street, it is called like that in USA, right?
If you are well aware about CANDU, then your recent post about nuclear energy make no sense at all. If that fits into the mirror metaphor:
Re: (Score:2)
You are just silly, i mixed up the word at that time, and we actually talked about it, and I fixed the error. I meant "fission product" - and that was pretty clear from the context anyway.
Yes, after calling ME stupid about 5 times and pontificating on the nature of "Actinides". I told you several times that what you were saying was not true of ACTINIDES and you kept insisting. BTW, the word in German is close enough that most people would guess, unless they just wanted an excuse to call someone stupid again. Kinda like you're doing now. It's a pattern with you. *PLONK*
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon pricing would send a signal for gas turbines to not be on when there is enough wind, solar
The marginal price of wind and solar is approximately zero, so in a free market they will always stop the gas turbines. No need for separate signalling.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon pricing would send a signal for gas turbines to not be on when there is enough wind, solar
The marginal price of wind and solar is approximately zero, so in a free market they will always stop the gas turbines. No need for separate signalling.
But if you also want reliable power generation then just wind power is not necessarily enough. Big businesses can potentially sign contracts for reliable power, but if a power company can't get them to pay enough to make providing it economic in all circumstances then they won't be signed. And where does it leave domestic customers? Are they prepared to pay the premium. You could argue that if they are not they need to take their chances, maybe? But when it's an event that seems remote then persuading custo
Re: (Score:2)
If they're not on most of the time, they won't be built. They would never return the investment.
Contracts for emergency power are a staple of all well-run electricity grids. They return the investment by getting paid for by everyone, whether they run or not.
Some data centers participate in the emergency power market, both by being able to rapidly load shed and by having emergency generators.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one thing you are glossing over— *local* wind and solar need significant hedges with other sources of power. Your alternative to batteries is transmission lines. Batteries should be focused on diurnal generation/load shifting. You analyze seasonal variability separately, and yes, you might need some gas fired power plants to support 5-10% of the MWh requirements, focused on winter.
Or for the 1% events, support things like high efficiency wood-burning stoves for heating in northern lattitud
Re: (Score:2)
4) Switch to variable pricing to keep electrical demand below supply at all times and prevent blackouts.
Flat pricing is a stupid idea whenever supply or demand isn't constant. Restaurants know this, that's why they price lunch and dinner differently. The airlines also know this, that's why flights from A to B vary in price by the hour and the day. And eBay's whole business is centered around setting the price at the intersection of the supply and demand curves.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the options are: 1) Install a shit-ton of batteries. Like a really enormous amount, no idea if it's really feasible 2) Build new nuclear plants 3) Build new natural gas plants
And so far, everyone seems to be happily going with #3 even though it goes against the whole global warming efforts.
There are batteries that use really cheap materials. One new one uses a strange Iron oxide/fuel cell which shows a lot of promise, if being a tad more complicated than what we normally think of as a battery. Another is something I like. Nickel-iron. Cheap ingredients, probably the toughest battery out there. long lasting with many charge discharge cycles.It doesn't have great charge retention (but it does have acceptable retention. Heavy as hell, but who cares for a battery that we just keep em in a manson
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that most /. ers have a super simplistic view on the complexity of the nuclear industrial complex.
Mining: open pit mining -> and CO2 intensive
Refining and enriching: expensive
Transport: at the moment CO2 intensive
Reprocessing: produces more and more dangerous waste than just depositing the spent fuel
Waste problem: German does not know where to put its waste. All locations which were guessed suitable, and actually used: have to be emptied and reworked.
New reactor designs.
Yes, they exist. Es
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that most /. ers have a super simplistic view on the complexity of the nuclear industrial complex.
Mining: open pit mining -> and CO2 intensive Refining and enriching: expensive Transport: at the moment CO2 intensive Reprocessing: produces more and more dangerous waste than just depositing the spent fuel
I have to admit, I often don't think of the miscellaneous carbon release issues. Good point.
Waste problem: German does not know where to put its waste. All locations which were guessed suitable, and actually used: have to be emptied and reworked.
Yikes! Being Germany we're talking about, I'm making an assumption that the storage containers are well thought out and produced, but what a pain in the ass.
New reactor designs. Yes, they exist. Especially CANDU, which basically burns natural uranium - would be an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Question is, is building enough wind capacity to always meet demand, building long distance distribution lines, and doing a bit of demand shifting, more or less expensive than nuclear power?
The answer is less.
Re: (Score:2)
The grid is going to be a necessary sunk cost regardless of what power source one uses. From replacement (infrastructure bill [nytimes.com]) to upgrades caused by demand and technology. e.g. smart grid.
Re: (Score:2)
smart grid
Just another way of saying that we'll be turning your clothes dryer off in the middle of a load when the wind dies down. Enjoy going to work in damp shorts.
But with the money you save from not subsidizing nuclear. You can buy 2 pairs of shorts.
Re: (Score:2)
But with the money you save from not subsidizing nuclear. You can buy 2 pairs of shorts.
I thought that nuclear power receives absolutely no subsidies. The nukies assure me of that, indeed get angry if I tell them that it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical stupid american bullshit myth.
Smart grids are about switching stuff ON not about switching OFF. We know hours in advance if the wind will weaken or not. And no one is going to switch anything off from an household customer. How can you even be so idiotic stupid?
If there is surplus, usually known ahead, then the grid operator wants to switch ON your washing machine / dryer combination. And he perfectly knows that he will be able to let it run till it is finished. No idea where these bullshit ANGST is
Re: Wind and solar rules! As CO2 (Score:3)
What is your definition of "always"?
Texas just had an uproar when the power went down during a one week every ten years event. That is 99.8% availability, and people didn't seem to think it was good enough.
Where I live we have hydroelectric as a main supply, although the environmentalists want the dams ripped out. But the upper Midwest doesn't have that option, and they have short days in the winter which are often cloudy, and the coldest weather is often combined with a dead calm. Power outages are not jus
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough Steam [youtu.be] kept New Yorkers from freezing when coal delivery couldn't get through.
Re: (Score:2)
My definition of always is at all times.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's your homework:
How much wind generation capacity would you need to meet the total energy needs of the UK (that which can't be shifted) on the calmest night in winter (when non-shiftable demand, such as heating, lighting, and critical infrastructure is maximised)?
Is it possible to install this capacity in the UK and if so, where would you need to put it to generate this power?
Extraordinary solutions, like yours, require extraordinary proof. Please provide it.
Re: Wind and solar rules! (Score:5, Informative)
transporting all that energy is expensive.
Transporting energy by HVDC is about half the cost of transporting the same energy with a gas pipeline. Yet no one says pipelines are too expensive.
You would import wind from California all the way to New York?
Of course not. You would import from the Great Plains: Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Saskatchewan. Or from offshore, such as wind farms on Georges Banks.
A 2GW HDVC line costs about $2M per mile. So ND to NY would cost about $4B. Over a 20 year life, it would add 1 cent per kWh.
Wind costs about 3 cents/kWh. With HVDC, it is 4 cents. That is only a third of the cost of nuclear.
The Netherlands is just starting to notice how foolish they were
The Netherlands is tiny. America is not.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at Berkshire Hathaway's Energy portfolio, they've done this math and have invested massively in transport infrastructure. They are way out in front of anyone else on renewables energy transport and it's going to print money.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. They can generate electricity for 3 cents per kwh on the prairie and sell it in NY and New England at a wholesale price three times that amount. The transport cost is only a cent, so that leaves a big profit. If they successfully lobby for a carbon tax, the profit will be even juicier.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many forms of energy storage.
I'm not saying don't use nukes. I'm saying that nukes are not always/the only solution.
Nukes *true* costs need to be recognized too. Including subsidies and tremendous cost overruns when it comes time to decomission them, and the ongoing cost of security for their spent fuel. Right now, we mostly just dump the cost of nukes on generations who are not even born yet so they won't get the benefit of the 'cheap' power.
But flywheels, various kinds of gravity storage, the
Re: (Score:2)
Variability is always part of grids. If it's not part of the supply, it's part of the demand.
Nuclear power plant power production is flat (as insanely expensive as nuclear power is already (from a LCOE perspective), it would get several times more expensive if you tried to do load following with it; they have to run them nearly at max output constantly. Flat power production is not actually what's actually desirable, because demand is not flat over the course of the day. Demand is lowest and night and pick
Re: (Score:2)
Too cheap to meter.
Re: (Score:2)
I deal with this stuff for a living. You're too optimistic. The issue right now is you need the ability to carry most of the united states through a polar vortex event (which are only forecast to become more frequent). These happen at a time of year when solar output is at its lowest. When the vortex hits winds come to a near standstill. Oh, and electricity demand skyrockets, which will only get worse as more houses are switched to heat pumps and more electric cars are put on the road. The events cove
Re: (Score:2)
Great, so you have 3 weeks every few years with high demand and low supply. And you propose nuclear as a solution. That gives nuclear a capacity factor of less than 5%, which translates to a grid price measured in dollars per kWh.
Meanwhile most of the demand is for heat, and that can be stored from summer to winter. You can do that a lot cheaper than dollars per kWh. Without the heat demand, the problem becomes massively easier to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
When the vortex hits winds come to a near standstill.
Actually, no. It does not.
Just because it stops (which is extremely unlikely) at a certain spot: it has not stopped everywhere.
Perhaps you want to read up what that vortex actually is, (* facepalm *).
Next time you have a vortex event, I suggest to open http://www.windy.com/ [windy.com] or http://www.windfinder.com/ [windfinder.com] and have a damn look!
And depending where you are, and don't have a blizzard (oh that would be wind, I'm sure you can not have blizzards during a vortex ev
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what I'm talking about has been modeled, it's not just idle speculation. The exact mix of solar vs. wind, the sort of long-distance grid connections needed, the exact amount of storage (24-72 hours), and the amount overbuilding (2-5x) needed vary from location to location. But there's affordable, viable 100% solutions everywhere as renewable and storage prices continue to plunge, for reliable year-round power. Leading to a massive excess of cheap power for the rest of the year.
Even without the contin
Re: (Score:2)
The Netherlands is just starting to notice how foolish they were relying on unstable resources, nobody in Amsterdam is currently able to build out anything at or above 3x80A, because they lack transport capability which would require 70% of the countryÃ(TM)s net to be replaced, and there goes the idea that youÃ(TM)ll charge a growing network of vehicles.
Rofldi rofldi. Any source?
Re: Wind and solar rules! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you running out of land and sea? From what I can see you have very large amounts of empty space, both onshore and offshore.
Also even though wind power requires the windmills to be spaced out, that doesn't mean you can't use the land in-between them for anything. Lots of farmers use that land to grow crops, for example. Some places put them on brownfield sites in the middle of heavy industry.
Re: (Score:2)
The land can go solar AND electricity [youtu.be] and to tie this into the coffee story fits shade-grown perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but I'm happy putting solar panels on my roof and can put enough up there to run my house. I really wouldn't want even a tiny nuclear reactor / nuclear battery sufficient to run my house on my property.
The best nuclear power is fusion, and the best fusion reactor is sitting in the centre of the solar system. We just need to get a bit smarter about tapping energy from it. Better batteries / storage may be the answer, orbital solar may be the answer, or a combination of the two.
Re: (Score:2)
are you OK having your power turned off if it gets cloudy and the wind stops blowing?
Why would anyone switch off your heat pump?
And why would there be no wind just because it is cloudy?
Re: (Score:2)
On a macro scale the micro fluctuations of solar exposure and wind variability even out. Storage technologies help in that process. But most important is that gas generators aren't going away which helps address the base load part of the equation. The role nuke proponents are aiming for. Not solar or wind because that's an economic battle they'd lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ICF [youtu.be] is probably the best for insulation and mass. It's also good for all these disaster areas.
Re: 6 year extension (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nuclear is a horrible source for base load requirements.
Base load is supposed to look like this: https://nuclear-power.com/wp-c... [nuclear-power.com]
You generate the base with cheap, but inflexible nuclear. You generate the peaks with expensive/dirty but flexible alternate sources.
But that graph is complete bullshit. Real electricity demand turns out to look like this: http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~... [gla.ac.uk]
This means that there isn't a large, stable, flat "base" for nuclear to sit in. But ok, suppose we have a nuclear plant that c
Re: (Score:3)
Real electricity demand turns out to look like this: http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~... [gla.ac.uk]
That graph is designed to mislead. Look at the baseline for the y-axis.
Re: (Score:2)
That graph is designed to mislead. Look at the baseline for the y-axis.
It's by an academic for consumption by academics who can read a y-axis. It's not going to be intended to mislead.
ShanghaiBill is correct, that kind of graph is misleading. It even has a name: "torn graph"
In this context it is a bald-faced lie because the topic is baseload and the graph cuts off the base.
If that had been presented in a paper or a meeting to academics, it would get called out as BS almost instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
In this context it is a bald-faced lie because the topic is baseload and the graph cuts off the base.
No it is not.
The base is clearly visible at 2.5 - nearly 3.0.
And the top is clearly close to 5.
Absolutely nothing misleading about this graph. Y-axis and X-axis are clearly numbered.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing the figures from your graph, it clearly shows a >25 GW base load with peaks of nearly 50GW.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~... [gla.ac.uk]
That graph is 2011 comsumption and is taken from this report.
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/p... [gla.ac.uk]
It is a student project for projected energy production and consumption in 2025.
It's interesting, people should read it.
One of the things it notes is that if all the excess generation during overproduction is stored at 80% efficiency (using existing technology), there is not enough excess generation at present to supply the country during the winter deficit. However, increasing renewable production by only 7.2% ca
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you want to look at your graph?
Yes, there is a stable flat plateau for base load. At the 2.5 mark, albeit I would put it close to the 3.0 mark.
The graph is misleading for your eyes because it lower left corner starts with 2 on the X-axis, and not with zero.
If the load curve is correct, then your base load is over 50% of peak - which is pretty normal for European countries.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the post we're talking about: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Base load is supposed to look like this: https://nuclear-power.com/wp-c [nuclear-power.com]... [nuclear-power.com]
You generate the base with cheap, but inflexible nuclear. You generate the peaks with expensive/dirty but flexible alternate sources.
But that graph is complete bullshit. Real electricity demand turns out to look like this: http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~ [gla.ac.uk]... [gla.ac.uk]
This means that there isn't a large, stable, flat "base" for nuclear to sit in.
See where he says "But that graph is compete bullshit"? That graph has the base on it.
The next graph he says shows there is no base load, but that graph has the base cut off.
He says "This means that there isn't a large, stable, flat "base" for nuclear to sit in. "
But there is. that base is a continuing 2.5 every day and never drops below that. But his torn graph hides that.
Yeah, sure you can figure it out, but the OP is telling a bald f
Re: (Score:2)
I should clarify where my over-reaction is coming from. There has been recently a movement to re-define the term "base load" in a way that makes "base load" not exist. So when I saw vadim_t's post, that implied there's no such thing as "base load" I got "triggered", lol.
Here's a older post and a thread from slashdot
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
The post by smidge204 is an example. It claims:
Base Load" is the minimum output of a power plant before it has to be turned off completely. "
wtf? There are other examples, equally weird and wrong.
Their idea appears to be that if there's no such thing as ba
Re: (Score:2)
Most (american) usage (by laymen or /. ers) of the term "base load" is wrong.
And I got tired correcting it long ago. But sometimes I do.
Re: (Score:2)
A) You answered to the wrong person
B) the graph is not designed to misslead
The graph belongs to a theses, and is crafted for that thesis, and not for the parents argument.
And: everyone cans see the base is not ZERO but a bit above 2.5.
If anyone is wrong here: then the parent. He should not have used a graph that does not support his argument but is a deep link into a completely different thesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Even solar panels would have to operate for decades before they match the pollution levels per TWH that nuclear power makes just by their production.
Extremely unlikely as solar produces no pollution and uranium is strip mined, refined, enriched and transported.
No idea why people come up with such bullshit claims.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you for a fact that in the summertime we had days where for a week, we had winds under 5 mph. But not at 100 - 150 yards above the ground :P
Re: (Score:2)
Capacity factor not the best in Illinois, 30 percent. Usable but other places beat its pants off.
Re: (Score:2)
We had C-Scows, with 30' masts.
I do keep thinking that perhaps a half mile off lake mich might be doable, but I recall plenty of times fishing for coho and the waters were calm.
Re: (Score:2)
There would be environmental concerns, also the old and active intake cribs for city water are 2.3 miles out, don't want to collapse any of the old tunnels.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar and wind are already fine, it's power storage that is quite shite right now.
But it's not static as well.
Re: 6 year extension (Score:2)
The plants could keep running if they got compensated properly. The problem is the government sticking its finger where it doesnâ(TM)t belong tipping the scales against cheap energy. There are solar and wind farms that ar wholly subsidized and thus can sell their energy for pennies on the dollar, even gas and oil plants are subsidized to some extent if they implement scrubbers, but a nuclear plant that is cleaner and safer than any of them has to pay a surcharge just because people are kind of scared o
Re: (Score:3)
Real question is could two new nuclear plants be constructed and certified in that timespan or even before 2030?
No, I'd say the real question is why do we continue to defend the corruption. Red Tape isn't just a factor in budgeting and building a nuclear power plant. It's THE factor, which is rather ridiculous.
Politicians will fight and argue endlessly about replacing nuclear with wind/solar, eventually finding out how hard (or impossible) that really is due to ever-increasing demand in certain environments. Enough of the red tape. Modern designs are much safer. Politics is the real hazard now.
Re: (Score:2)
I can gree with that, I don't think nuclear energy works in a market-based energy economy when the carbon externalities are not factored into the cost. A lot of the regulations around nuclear plants are necessary from a safety perspective.
Personally I would rather new nuclear plants be a nationalized similar to the TVA, specifically with exemptions to the normal beauracratic roadblocks to construction and ceritfication, IE environmental reviews are final and not subject to lawsuits that drag out the process
2030 1st we need an no homers rule and 2 fed (Score:2)
2030 1st we need an no homers rule and 2 fed needs to step do stuff at the fed level.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Real question is could two new nuclear plants be constructed and certified in that timespan or even before 2030?
To which the answer is no which is why nuclear isn't the solution to global warming, but rather a future contributor to energy after we've already done something about it in another way.
Take for example a country that makes it easy to approve nuclear projects (France) along with an international renowned expert in nuclear projects (AREVA), and you get the sad story of Flamanville 3. Approved in the first few years of the new millennium. Construction began 2007, scheduled to take 5 years.
They just announced
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Once these elements are separated
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If there was cheap nuclear power, you might have a point.
Did we get to cheap solar power overnight? No, it took many decades of research and development. Development means building things. To get cheap nuclear power requires development. Lots and lots of development. That means building dozens of nuclear power plants, each one being very expensive because each one is trying something new.
As it is right now nuclear power is lower cost than solar + storage for reliable power. Intermittent energy sources has a cost, and as it is now solar power is not paying t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If investment in wind and solar guarantees success then why would anyone pay the subsidies to keep these nuclear power plants open? Can you explain that to me? I want you to explain how these nuclear power plant operators got the state government to agree to provide the funds needed to keep these power plants open if wind and solar are a "guarantee of success".
The reason state governments agreed to this is because they know loss of these nuclear power plants will be a huge hit to their economy, and wind a
Re: (Score:2)
These thing's can't run forever and they can't simply be replaced with wind/solar.
Perhaps you should consult a calendar. Today is 20th of September 2021.
So: yes, they can be simply replaced with wind and solar till 2030.
Is CO2 reduction important or not? (Score:3)
If those plants closed down, where do you think replacement power was coming from?
It was going to come either from gas or coal.
Does it really matter I the plants have to be subsidized if CO2 reduction is your #1 priority?
This by the way is why both Democrats and Republicans agreed to extend the life of the plants.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the few times I completely agree with SuperKendall.
Keeping existing nuclear plants in operation as long as possible is something we absolutely should do, and if it takes subsidies so be it. We should be subsidizing non-CO2 producing power more, not less.
Eventually the cost of keeping plants in operation may become excessive, but 80 year operation is now envisioned for many plants. That would keep these plants in operation until 2065.
It looks like these two plants together produce 4 GWe. At a subsidy
Re: (Score:2)
To not mention other immediate terrifying problems that come with coal power, such as the literal millions of deaths it cause with the air pollution.
Air pollution in total reaps around 8-9 million lives per year, and i bet a good chunk of it comes from coal power.
Yes very good point. (Score:2)
To not mention other immediate terrifying problems that come with coal power, such as the literal millions of deaths it cause with the air pollution.
As much as people like to talk about CO2, emissions are way more why I have long been a backer of nuclear power.
Even some of the worst disasters in nuclear history caused only a blip compared to the number of people maimed from coal emissions (and by the way coal emissions are radioactive as well!!).
With modern nuclear reactors you have far less chances of any
Re: (Score:2)
You must live in a 3rd world country then. In 1st world countries coal exhaust is scrubbed ... since the late 1970s.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "you're too poor" to the millions of people dying will not save em.
Private market capitalism at its finest! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really (Score:3)
1) with coal, we pay the miners health and retirement bills. These are NOT trivial. In addition, nearly all of the coal comes from federal BLM land and it is given to them for nearly to actually free. Add to that the fact that all of the R&D for it comes from the feds. And none of this includes paying for the massive amounts of pollution in the air, on land, and in our waters.
2) With O&G, w
Re: (Score:2)
The plants produce gigawatts of power without carbon emissions. Do you want to replace them with coal plants that actually do kill with radiation and pollution, and contribute to global warming?
Dispatchable? (Score:2)
rather than continuing to support nuclear energy, Illinois needs to redouble its commitment to wind and solar.
Please, do produce this dispatchable wind and solar that is available any time it is needed, even on dark, calm, cold nights when energy demand is high. Until then, shut up and support zero-carbon energy that we can rely on.
Solar and wind have their place in energy mix, but they cannot supply all energy because they cannot be relied on.
Renwable instead of nuclear (Score:3)