3 ms·

Right now, gas prices are falling (since the gas storages are full) and federal assistance is currently in the works. So, while possible, I don't know how likel

by V__ 4y ago

Right now, gas prices are falling (since the gas storages are full) and federal assistance is currently in the works. So, while possible, I don't know how likely of a problem this will be.

timmg 4y ago
Above you pointed out the high cost of replacing fuel rods. How does that compare to the “federal assistance” required to pay bloated gas bills?
- V__ 4y ago
  Also maintenance, but still in comparison, it probably isn't a lot. The last figure I have is about 17 billion for all those federal programs and investments (but those include cheaper public transport tickets as well as other things). However, I don't thing those costs are comparable. Those nuclear plants won't have a dramatic impact on the price of gas or energy, so the cost of the federal programs will be there nonetheless.
  - timmg 4y ago
    > Those nuclear plants won't have a dramatic impact on the price of gas or energy, so the cost of the federal programs will be there nonetheless. Even if it doesn’t change the price of gas, wouldn’t it mean buying/burning less gas than you would otherwise? That, in itself, would be a huge savings. Maybe I’m just missing some data, but this seems like a no-brainer to me on several levels. It’s hard for me to understand anyone being against this.
    - V__ 4y ago
      They estimate about 1-2% in gas savings, due to the fact that nuclear is base load and gas plants are used mostly for grid compensation. If the gas storages were empty, and the LNG-terminals weren't about to go online, I would like to see the nuclear plants be kept online. Right now, I'd rather they would invest that money in the future.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        Nuclear energy is the future. It's the lowest-carbon and the safest form of energy we know of. China knows this, which is why they're adding 150 new nuclear power plants in the next 15 years. [1] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
        V__ 4y ago
        I think it will be part of a future solution. But building new right now isn't cheap and will just take to long. In addition the old reactors are pretty expensive. I'm looking forward to see how new reactor designs and modular solutions will fare in the next few years.
        arcticbull 4y ago
        > I think it will be part of a future solution. I agree completely. Along with solar, wind, hydro (+storage appropriate to each) and probably even natural gas peaker plants. > But building new right now isn't cheap and will just take to long. Yep, definitely - but it should be done. If you're interested I'd suggest listening to the most recent Odd Lots with Jigar Shah, who's in charge of the DoE loan program (~300B in capital). He talks about how building reactors right now is like building airports - each one a custom specimen for the given landscape and conditions - whereas he believes we should move to a model of building airplanes, mass-producing reactors that fit only where conditions permit out of reusable components. > I'm looking forward to see how new reactor designs and modular solutions will fare in the next few years. Me too!
        V__ 4y ago
        Thanks for the podcast suggestion, will take a listen.

by V__ 4y ago

Right now, gas prices are falling (since the gas storages are full) and federal assistance is currently in the works. So, while possible, I don't know how likely of a problem this will be.

timmg 4y ago

Above you pointed out the high cost of replacing fuel rods. How does that compare to the “federal assistance” required to pay bloated gas bills?

V__ 4y ago
Also maintenance, but still in comparison, it probably isn't a lot. The last figure I have is about 17 billion for all those federal programs and investments (but those include cheaper public transport tickets as well as other things). However, I don't thing those costs are comparable. Those nuclear plants won't have a dramatic impact on the price of gas or energy, so the cost of the federal programs will be there nonetheless.
- timmg 4y ago
  > Those nuclear plants won't have a dramatic impact on the price of gas or energy, so the cost of the federal programs will be there nonetheless. Even if it doesn’t change the price of gas, wouldn’t it mean buying/burning less gas than you would otherwise? That, in itself, would be a huge savings. Maybe I’m just missing some data, but this seems like a no-brainer to me on several levels. It’s hard for me to understand anyone being against this.
  - V__ 4y ago
    They estimate about 1-2% in gas savings, due to the fact that nuclear is base load and gas plants are used mostly for grid compensation. If the gas storages were empty, and the LNG-terminals weren't about to go online, I would like to see the nuclear plants be kept online. Right now, I'd rather they would invest that money in the future.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Nuclear energy is the future. It's the lowest-carbon and the safest form of energy we know of. China knows this, which is why they're adding 150 new nuclear power plants in the next 15 years. [1] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
      - V__ 4y ago
        I think it will be part of a future solution. But building new right now isn't cheap and will just take to long. In addition the old reactors are pretty expensive. I'm looking forward to see how new reactor designs and modular solutions will fare in the next few years.
        arcticbull 4y ago
        > I think it will be part of a future solution. I agree completely. Along with solar, wind, hydro (+storage appropriate to each) and probably even natural gas peaker plants. > But building new right now isn't cheap and will just take to long. Yep, definitely - but it should be done. If you're interested I'd suggest listening to the most recent Odd Lots with Jigar Shah, who's in charge of the DoE loan program (~300B in capital). He talks about how building reactors right now is like building airports - each one a custom specimen for the given landscape and conditions - whereas he believes we should move to a model of building airplanes, mass-producing reactors that fit only where conditions permit out of reusable components. > I'm looking forward to see how new reactor designs and modular solutions will fare in the next few years. Me too!
        V__ 4y ago
        Thanks for the podcast suggestion, will take a listen.