I’m still trying to convince the powers that be to put a shipping container sized SMR in my backyard.
Just buy your wife some really fancy jewelry and she'll let you.
I’m still trying to convince the powers that be to put a shipping container sized SMR in my backyard.
To put some perspective on things, we went from a flat rate of around $0.045/kWh to TOU rates with the peak tier being $0.217/kWh and the "cheap" rate being $0.105/kWh. For folks that heated with baseboard, their bills skyrocketed. A 2,200kWh hydro bill went from $99 with a minimal delivery charge, to $330+ plus a considerable delivery charge. In a very short period of time, we tripled what we paid for electricity, this understandably produced considerable outrage.There will always be poor who have to make this type of tradeoff regardless of the generation source.
Forget 600, how about starting with 20 and go from there. Plus there's no way to even build hundreds of reactor cores even some what fast.Where would you build 600 new nuclear reactors and how likely do you think those sites would get built on budget?
Here's the deal. The current fleet of approx 200 reactors supplies 1/3 of US total capacity so when people suggest that "nuclear is the answer" I'm providing an idea of what that actually means rather than what they think it means. Maybe the actual number of additional reactors is 300 but they're really big generators.Forget 600, how about starting with 20 and go from there. Plus there's no way to even build hundreds of reactor cores even some what fast.
I'll check in one sunny day per month to see how bad it gets. Also, I'd like to check at what day of the year they struggle to achieve " nameplate" production.I expect the curve for Alberta will be similar to what we see in Ontario:
View attachment 175644
View attachment 175645
Solar did well yesterday during the AESO Stage 3 grid alert though, quite unlike wind.
View attachment 175648
View attachment 175649
View attachment 175647
The US currently operates 92 (or 95 depending on your source) nuclear reactors, where did you get 200 from?Here's the deal. The current fleet of approx 200 reactors supplies 1/3 of US total capacity so when people suggest that "nuclear is the answer" I'm providing an idea of what that actually means rather than what they think it means. Maybe the actual number of additional reactors is 300 but they're really big generators.
On an aside I don't know if you're aware but the most recent nuclear project which was just completed went 7 yrs over schedule and $17B over budget (2x the projected cost).
Any day it's overcast usually. The wildfire smoke really tempered the output of our solar here in Ontario.Also, I'd like to check at what day of the year they struggle to achieve " nameplate" production.
I was just going off memory. In any case it's a very large number that would have to be built to "Just go nuclear".The US currently operates 92 (or 95 depending on your source) nuclear reactors, where did you get 200 from?
https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/index.html
Nuclear was roughly 19%, so we could fudge that and say it's 1/5th the US total generation. This represents 95GW of capacity, which, at 93% CF, would produce ~774TWh.
The US generated 4,243TWh in 2022, of that, hydro produced 6.2%, so ~263TWh. Assuming no wind and solar (which would be silly, the solar can be useful, lol), we'd need 3,980TWh of generation from nuclear, which is 433 Vogtle sized units.
Totally doable though, the existing hundred or so units (some now decommissioned), the majority were built within a 20 or 30 year window. France's Messmer plan, which had the advantage of central planning and a common design, rolled out 56 units over ~20 years. Ontario did the same thing, we built 20 units in 20 years, and that's a single Canadian province.I was just going off memory. In any case it's a very large number that would have to be built to "Just go nuclear".
This is true of just about everything. Money is power. The old saying, "The first million is the hardest" is really, really true.And this is what drives energy poverty unfortunately. The folks that are able to spend the capital to avoid getting boned during the rate spikes (assuming TOU billing) are the least likely to be impacted by them. They make the choice not because they can't afford the higher rates, but because they can afford to avoid paying them.
The people most impacted by the skyrocketing rates are those least able to afford them, so you have people making choices like "heat or eat", which was a catchphrase coined during the GEA days here in Ontario where skyrocketing rates caught people off-guard thanks to wind and solar subsidies. The same thing has played-out in Germany, where the rates are appallingly high.
Political interference in energy systems tends to always end badly. Picking winners, and then incentivizing their construction, drives up system costs which disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable.
Interesting...every business card sized piece of lant under the nuke would need about 7 square yards of wind to match the annual power output (ignore variablity and schedulability)...so if you wonder where the nukes would go, you answer where the wind would go with...everywhere...Where would you build 600 new nuclear reactors and how likely do you think those sites would get built on budget?
I believe the one mentioned above is the new one in GA. The original contractor - Westinghouse - declared bankruptcy - so no one could force them to do anything - and they had been feeding them money to begin with to try to keep them afloat to finish the project. That was part of - but not the only reason it was so far over budget.Over budget? No. Require completion of contract on terms of contract at contracted amount. Done properly. Take all the time you want, within 1.2 times projected completion time, Any longer and penalties will ensue. Stop allowing them to just print money.
The average French reactor is 37 years old. There working on extending their useable life to 80 years. So they will need to build a lot more again soon. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/ar...fe-of-french-nuclear-reactors_6014297_7.html#Solar works great in sunny areas during the daylight hours.
Not so well on a hot summer evening when there is no solar output and everyone has the AC blasting and the EV charging.
Why would anyone expect any utility to pay a large rate for solar power during the day, when the grid doesn't need the output while expecting their utility to provide reliable power during the hours of darkness?
Nuclear is the only low carbon option for most of our country.
If the French can generate 72% of their electric power needs using nuclear, then why can't we?
Are the French that much better at engineering and execution than we are?
But isn't it worth it to not strip mine the entire planet for steel and concrete to have power that works at night.Here's the deal. The current fleet of approx 200 reactors supplies 1/3 of US total capacity so when people suggest that "nuclear is the answer" I'm providing an idea of what that actually means rather than what they think it means. Maybe the actual number of additional reactors is 300 but they're really big generators.
On an aside I don't know if you're aware but the most recent nuclear project which was just completed went 7 yrs over schedule and $17B over budget (2x the projected cost).
Why would anyone in a cold climate with a “legacy” home heat with electric baseboard?!? To me that’s the bigger issue. I recall my parents going through this in the early 80s when they built their mountain home. They went dual fuel coal/oil hydronic.To put some perspective on things, we went from a flat rate of around $0.045/kWh to TOU rates with the peak tier being $0.217/kWh and the "cheap" rate being $0.105/kWh. For folks that heated with baseboard, their bills skyrocketed. A 2,200kWh hydro bill went from $99 with a minimal delivery charge, to $330+ plus a considerable delivery charge. In a very short period of time, we tripled what we paid for electricity, this understandably produced considerable outrage.
People in Quebec, where everything is still vertically integrated, pay around $0.065/kWh currently, IIRC.
Our rates went back down, and should go down further once the GEA contracts start expiring in a couple of years. Current rates are $0.074/0.102/0.151.
There's a similar delusion with Coal, that they "have" to run baseload, and dump energy.But isn't it worth it to not strip mine the entire planet for steel and concrete to have power that works at night.
Plus nuclear isn't the answer. It can only make 50 to 70% of power because nuclear doesn't like to vary it's power output and they don't turn off and turn back on so easy. When they trn off they have to stay off for 24 to 48 hours. So really nuclear is only around half to about 2/3 of the answer.
Many homes were built with baseboard / no forced air. Depending on construction, retrofit can be a large capital expense. Yes, likely would pay for itself over time, but someone has to find the money to begin with. Easier said than done for a lot of people, which are usually the same people struggling to pay the electric bill.Why would anyone in a cold climate with a “legacy” home heat with electric baseboard?!? To me that’s the bigger issue.