3 ms·

Perhaps ironically, oil fired generators have to fire up to supply enough electricity for these cold snaps. Low-carbon nuclear, high-carbon fracked gas, and hig

Perhaps ironically, oil fired generators have to fire up to supply enough electricity for these cold snaps. Low-carbon nuclear, high-carbon fracked gas, and high-carbon oil are the three largest sources of electricity in Maine during deep freezes. https://www.themainewire.com/2023/02/amid-cold-snap-maines-electricity-comes-from-nuclear-natural-gas-and-fossil-fuels/ https://www.themainewire.com/2023/02/amid-cold-snap-maines-e...

mkozlows 4y ago
It's not that ironic. Electrification isn't a "welp, we're done now, yay" thing, it's one of two parallel paths that works together for decarbonization. 1. Electrify all the things 2. Clean up the electrical supply Obviously if you only look at one of the paths in isolation, it doesn't solve problems ("it's great that everything's electric, but electricity is still high carbon"/"it's great that electricity is clean, but most energy use isn't electric"), but there's no path forward on climate that doesn't involve both.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Why electrify all the things instead of decarbonize all the things? Lots of places use zero carbon nuclear district heating to take advantage of the hot water for building heat. It can be pumped 100 km from the plant as it is at Beznau. This makes nuclear more cost effective as well since you're using a valuable product (heat) that is otherwise wasted.
  - twobitshifter 4y ago
    The idea of nuclear power plants in the US near residential communities is a non-starter. Solar thermal or geothermal might be an option, but I believe heat pumps outperform those options on cost.
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      How is it a non-starter? Nuclear plants are low-carbon and extremely safe [1]. 100 km is a long way. There are millions of people in the USA living within 100 km of a nuclear plant. Showing people the numbers on nuclear isn't that hard. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
      - twobitshifter 4y ago
        It will never be built for political reasons.
        euroderf 4y ago
        Offer it cheap and the market will clear.
  - olau 4y ago
    I think the answer is simply that if you run the numbers, it's just not economical to use nuclear plants for district heating. It's probably great if you can use district heating for cooling, but generally nuclear plants are very expensive so you want to get as much high-valued electricity out of them as possible.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Of you're building the district heating anyway then a district heating reservoir, a heat pump and some solar collectors plus enough wind and solar for equivalent total gross heat output (in addition to the collectors) is still cheaper.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Moving from burning fuel oil for heating to high efficiency heat pumps powered partly by nuclear seems like a really good thing for lots of reasons. Also they used to burn fuel oil all year round for electricity, now its just the winter demand peaks. A positive trend. edit: I also don't understand how 7% can be more than average contribution from wind, since yearly it contributes more like a quarter? edit: I think(?) the explanation for the discrepancy is comparing Maine to stats from the Wider New England grid. Hence 24% nuclear.

mkozlows 4y ago

It's not that ironic. Electrification isn't a "welp, we're done now, yay" thing, it's one of two parallel paths that works together for decarbonization. 1. Electrify all the things 2. Clean up the electrical supply Obviously if you only look at one of the paths in isolation, it doesn't solve problems ("it's great that everything's electric, but electricity is still high carbon"/"it's great that electricity is clean, but most energy use isn't electric"), but there's no path forward on climate that doesn't involve both.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
Why electrify all the things instead of decarbonize all the things? Lots of places use zero carbon nuclear district heating to take advantage of the hot water for building heat. It can be pumped 100 km from the plant as it is at Beznau. This makes nuclear more cost effective as well since you're using a valuable product (heat) that is otherwise wasted.
- twobitshifter 4y ago
  The idea of nuclear power plants in the US near residential communities is a non-starter. Solar thermal or geothermal might be an option, but I believe heat pumps outperform those options on cost.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    How is it a non-starter? Nuclear plants are low-carbon and extremely safe [1]. 100 km is a long way. There are millions of people in the USA living within 100 km of a nuclear plant. Showing people the numbers on nuclear isn't that hard. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
    - twobitshifter 4y ago
      It will never be built for political reasons.
      - euroderf 4y ago
        Offer it cheap and the market will clear.
- olau 4y ago
  I think the answer is simply that if you run the numbers, it's just not economical to use nuclear plants for district heating. It's probably great if you can use district heating for cooling, but generally nuclear plants are very expensive so you want to get as much high-valued electricity out of them as possible.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Of you're building the district heating anyway then a district heating reservoir, a heat pump and some solar collectors plus enough wind and solar for equivalent total gross heat output (in addition to the collectors) is still cheaper.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Moving from burning fuel oil for heating to high efficiency heat pumps powered partly by nuclear seems like a really good thing for lots of reasons. Also they used to burn fuel oil all year round for electricity, now its just the winter demand peaks. A positive trend. edit: I also don't understand how 7% can be more than average contribution from wind, since yearly it contributes more like a quarter? edit: I think(?) the explanation for the discrepancy is comparing Maine to stats from the Wider New England grid. Hence 24% nuclear.