3 ms·

I don't understand how it makes sense to make these decisions one-sided. I have no opinion if demolition is right or not, but should it not make sense to also i

by rapsey 4y ago

I don't understand how it makes sense to make these decisions one-sided. I have no opinion if demolition is right or not, but should it not make sense to also in the same bill fund a project to replace the lost power? Same goes for the Diablo canyon power plant and those plans for phasing it out.

xroche 4y ago
It is somehow addressed, but with unreliable wind power sources that ca'n't be controled: > We’re closing coal plants and building wind farms and it all just has to add up in the end. It’s not a one-to-one And of course this won't cover the loss of energy, so let's pretend we can do that through "energy efficiency" >You can make up that power by the way you operate the rest of your facilities or having energy efficiency savings so your customers are using less Tl;Dr for the energy side: Smoke and mirrors.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  But you can place a lot more wind farms (at higher total capacity) than hydro, which is dependent on environment. I don't understand the anti-wind sentiment in this thread. Yeah it's not ideal, but neither is hydro or nuclear. But all of them combined and mixed, they can make up for each other's shortfalls.
  - Extropy_ 4y ago
    Would you mind explaining why nuclear is not ideal?
    - rapsey 4y ago
      It takes 10 years to build
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        10 years? You're being generous here. Flamanville has been under construction since 2007, so at least 15 years for construction itself, and anything from 5-10 years for planning, acquiring land, relocation...
        godshatter 4y ago
        The best time to start building a nuclear power plant is 20 years ago; the second best time is today.
        mschuster91 4y ago
        No. The best time today is used for building out absurd amounts of renewable power - use geothermal for base load and wind/solar for peak load.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        No, the best time is to spend the first mover costs on renewables in the 50s through 70s instead and then never build nuclear (or in the 1910s instead of spending them on coal and oil). The second best time is to build renewables now that those costs have been paid over the last 20 years.
        mjhay 4y ago
        The long timelines and high costs of nuclear in the US have very little to do with the limits of the technology.
        daemoens 4y ago
        Mjhay is correct. Anti-nuclear activists have successfully managed to use the government to stop nuclear energy construction for decades. It is entirely a political problem, not a technical one.
    - olddustytrail 4y ago
      I can give two reasons: 1. A wind farm is built by a private company in order to make a profit selling cheap electricity. A nuclear plant is built with vast amounts of taxpayers money to sell expensive electricity. 2. Nuclear is not dispatchable. That means you need natural gas turbines, hydro or batteries on your grid to provide it. Something that's glossed over by the nuclear fans.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > 2. Nuclear is not dispatchable. This is not an intrinsic limitation. Naval nuclear reactors can power up to meet demand very rapidly. Civilian nuclear reactors aren't built like this for various reasons, including gas turbines just being cheaper for this purpose.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Naval nuclear reactors use HEU and are horrifically expensive even compared to civilian ones. Additionally when your capital and fixed O&M costs are higher than renewables with the same net power + batteries, then the costs of your peaking energy skyrocket even further. Far better to build less nuclear + storage. And then realise that the generation doesn't need to be nuclear in most places.
justin66 4y ago
> I have no opinion if demolition is right or not, but should it not make sense to also in the same bill fund a project to replace the lost power? "Replace the lost power" is something the market will do without legislation.
snowwrestler 4y ago
The short answer to your question is that energy supply in the U.S. is not centrally managed by the government. The U.S. energy grid exists as the sum of voluntary private efforts to generate power to make money. The government--actually governments, since there are autonomous local, state, and federal layers in the U.S.--do play an important role in regulating and coordinating the system. But most power generation is not owned or funded by the government, and fundamentally it is not the government's responsibility to fund new generation. If there is a forecasted shortfall in energy, that will be expressed in prices going up, which will attract investment in new generating capacity. So, we don't need every bit of existing generation to stay online. Power plants are idled and decommissioned every year, as more efficient (and therefore less expensive) new power plants come online and soak up the demand. Hydro power plants are not immune from this. Each decision to build new generating capacity, or take old generating capacity offline, is made on its own merits, in the context of what people know at that moment. It might seem frighteningly disorganized at first, but in the long run it is the best way to do things because of the flexibility built into the system.
- croo 4y ago
  What you described is capitalism as intended. Is this the reality or just a few big players and monopolies?
dntrkv 4y ago
You can’t compare Diablo Canyon to this situation. Diablo Canyon has a power output of 2,256MW vs 18MW for this tiny dam. This dam is many magnitudes smaller. The benefit of keeping the minuscule power output vs ecosystem damage and maintenance leans heavily towards removal.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's small enough you can just buy them online: https://www.uspeglobal.com/listings?selected_categories%5B%5D=Diesel+Generators&selected_subcategories%5B%5D=10+-+99+MW https://www.uspeglobal.com/listings?selected_categories%5B%5...
joe-collins 4y ago
As another comment said, this dam has been producing power on the scale of a single modern wind turbine. Its power generation is barely worth mentioning.

by rapsey 4y ago

xroche 4y ago

It is somehow addressed, but with unreliable wind power sources that ca'n't be controled: > We’re closing coal plants and building wind farms and it all just has to add up in the end. It’s not a one-to-one And of course this won't cover the loss of energy, so let's pretend we can do that through "energy efficiency" >You can make up that power by the way you operate the rest of your facilities or having energy efficiency savings so your customers are using less Tl;Dr for the energy side: Smoke and mirrors.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
But you can place a lot more wind farms (at higher total capacity) than hydro, which is dependent on environment. I don't understand the anti-wind sentiment in this thread. Yeah it's not ideal, but neither is hydro or nuclear. But all of them combined and mixed, they can make up for each other's shortfalls.
- Extropy_ 4y ago
  Would you mind explaining why nuclear is not ideal?
  - rapsey 4y ago
    It takes 10 years to build
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      10 years? You're being generous here. Flamanville has been under construction since 2007, so at least 15 years for construction itself, and anything from 5-10 years for planning, acquiring land, relocation...
      - godshatter 4y ago
        The best time to start building a nuclear power plant is 20 years ago; the second best time is today.
        mschuster91 4y ago
        No. The best time today is used for building out absurd amounts of renewable power - use geothermal for base load and wind/solar for peak load.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        No, the best time is to spend the first mover costs on renewables in the 50s through 70s instead and then never build nuclear (or in the 1910s instead of spending them on coal and oil). The second best time is to build renewables now that those costs have been paid over the last 20 years.
      - mjhay 4y ago
        The long timelines and high costs of nuclear in the US have very little to do with the limits of the technology.
        daemoens 4y ago
        Mjhay is correct. Anti-nuclear activists have successfully managed to use the government to stop nuclear energy construction for decades. It is entirely a political problem, not a technical one.
  - olddustytrail 4y ago
    I can give two reasons: 1. A wind farm is built by a private company in order to make a profit selling cheap electricity. A nuclear plant is built with vast amounts of taxpayers money to sell expensive electricity. 2. Nuclear is not dispatchable. That means you need natural gas turbines, hydro or batteries on your grid to provide it. Something that's glossed over by the nuclear fans.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > 2. Nuclear is not dispatchable. This is not an intrinsic limitation. Naval nuclear reactors can power up to meet demand very rapidly. Civilian nuclear reactors aren't built like this for various reasons, including gas turbines just being cheaper for this purpose.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Naval nuclear reactors use HEU and are horrifically expensive even compared to civilian ones. Additionally when your capital and fixed O&M costs are higher than renewables with the same net power + batteries, then the costs of your peaking energy skyrocket even further. Far better to build less nuclear + storage. And then realise that the generation doesn't need to be nuclear in most places.

justin66 4y ago

> I have no opinion if demolition is right or not, but should it not make sense to also in the same bill fund a project to replace the lost power? "Replace the lost power" is something the market will do without legislation.

snowwrestler 4y ago

The short answer to your question is that energy supply in the U.S. is not centrally managed by the government. The U.S. energy grid exists as the sum of voluntary private efforts to generate power to make money. The government--actually governments, since there are autonomous local, state, and federal layers in the U.S.--do play an important role in regulating and coordinating the system. But most power generation is not owned or funded by the government, and fundamentally it is not the government's responsibility to fund new generation. If there is a forecasted shortfall in energy, that will be expressed in prices going up, which will attract investment in new generating capacity. So, we don't need every bit of existing generation to stay online. Power plants are idled and decommissioned every year, as more efficient (and therefore less expensive) new power plants come online and soak up the demand. Hydro power plants are not immune from this. Each decision to build new generating capacity, or take old generating capacity offline, is made on its own merits, in the context of what people know at that moment. It might seem frighteningly disorganized at first, but in the long run it is the best way to do things because of the flexibility built into the system.

croo 4y ago
What you described is capitalism as intended. Is this the reality or just a few big players and monopolies?

dntrkv 4y ago

You can’t compare Diablo Canyon to this situation. Diablo Canyon has a power output of 2,256MW vs 18MW for this tiny dam. This dam is many magnitudes smaller. The benefit of keeping the minuscule power output vs ecosystem damage and maintenance leans heavily towards removal.

bombcar 4y ago
It's small enough you can just buy them online: https://www.uspeglobal.com/listings?selected_categories%5B%5D=Diesel+Generators&selected_subcategories%5B%5D=10+-+99+MW https://www.uspeglobal.com/listings?selected_categories%5B%5...

joe-collins 4y ago

As another comment said, this dam has been producing power on the scale of a single modern wind turbine. Its power generation is barely worth mentioning.