3 ms·

> Last summer, the Democrats passed a flat 30 percent federal clean energy tax credit, which replaced a tangle of continually expiring ad hoc tax credits. > W

> Last summer, the Democrats passed a flat 30 percent federal clean energy tax credit, which replaced a tangle of continually expiring ad hoc tax credits. > With that discount now available for any new wind or solar installation — and increased regulatory scrutiny of pollution and climate impacts from coal — the economics of coal increasingly don’t make sense, a series of recent reports by IEEFA and others have found. Good job, US Government. Separately though, I wonder if we shouldn't keep a few of these coal plants on some type of minimum possible electricity generation. There are multiple studies that show that SMR (small modular nuclear reactors) could be placed inside discontinued coal plants, and make them zero emission power plants (see for example [1] and [2]). Since a lot of the cost of a nuclear power plant is the non-nuclear turbine and the transformers and all the stuff required to hook the plant to the grid, that would help a lot for a nuclear renaissance. [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/repurposing-fossil-fuel-power-plant-sites-with-smrs-to-ease-clean-energy-transition https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/repurposing-fossil-fuel... [2] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/coal-plants-retire-advanced-nuclear-reactors-smr/645974/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/coal-plants-retire-advanced...

Schroedingersat 4y ago
SMRs 1) don't exist 2) aren't affordable even if you believe that projected costs will not increase in opposition to hundreds of prior cases where they did 3) still need a giant containment building which is going to involve knocking down most of your coal plant or routing steam awkwardly (losing heat and increasing costs) and 4) produce lower temperature steam at lower head than a coal burner so there's no evidence they'll even work properly without replacing or massively retrofitting the few remaining components. Using them as thermal batteries might work though. No need to keep them on for any of the above. Just mothball them. This does nicely reveal the actual goal of all the nuclear "advocacy" though.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > SMRs 1) don't exist Your information is dated. Two SMR's exist, one in Russia, one in China ([1]). > produce lower temperature steam at lower head than a coal burner That is not a problem (see [2]) > The concept underpinning this approach is the use of multi-stage compressors which are capable of uprating SMR-160’s relatively low enthalpy steam (700 psi @ 595 Deg F) to the elevated pressure and superheat needed to run the turbogenerator of a fossil power plant. The needed enthalpy boost can be modified to support continued operation of any plant’s turbogenerator, and in most cases would not require any external energy input. A provisional patent application has been filed for this innovation which opens the pathway to repurpose any coal-fired plant by replacing its coal-fired boiler with clean steam from the SMR-160 plant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#List_of_reactor_designs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#List_of_... [2] https://holtecinternational.com/2023/01/10/holtecs-smr-160-nuclear-reactor-slated-to-repurpose-coal-burning-power-plants-into-clean-energy-generators/ https://holtecinternational.com/2023/01/10/holtecs-smr-160-n...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Adding even more moving parts and maintenance costs will definitely solve it. Yes. And naval reactors definitely are the cheap, simple energy source of the future. This is why noone has built anything else since the 50s. A non-modular demo scale pebble bed reactor also ain't it. But you've already revealed your hand with that comment about continuing to burn coal juust in case it's not vaporware, so why are you still bothering to pretend it was about fantasy nuclear reactors?

Schroedingersat 4y ago

SMRs 1) don't exist 2) aren't affordable even if you believe that projected costs will not increase in opposition to hundreds of prior cases where they did 3) still need a giant containment building which is going to involve knocking down most of your coal plant or routing steam awkwardly (losing heat and increasing costs) and 4) produce lower temperature steam at lower head than a coal burner so there's no evidence they'll even work properly without replacing or massively retrofitting the few remaining components. Using them as thermal batteries might work though. No need to keep them on for any of the above. Just mothball them. This does nicely reveal the actual goal of all the nuclear "advocacy" though.

credit_guy 4y ago
> SMRs 1) don't exist Your information is dated. Two SMR's exist, one in Russia, one in China ([1]). > produce lower temperature steam at lower head than a coal burner That is not a problem (see [2]) > The concept underpinning this approach is the use of multi-stage compressors which are capable of uprating SMR-160’s relatively low enthalpy steam (700 psi @ 595 Deg F) to the elevated pressure and superheat needed to run the turbogenerator of a fossil power plant. The needed enthalpy boost can be modified to support continued operation of any plant’s turbogenerator, and in most cases would not require any external energy input. A provisional patent application has been filed for this innovation which opens the pathway to repurpose any coal-fired plant by replacing its coal-fired boiler with clean steam from the SMR-160 plant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#List_of_reactor_designs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#List_of_... [2] https://holtecinternational.com/2023/01/10/holtecs-smr-160-nuclear-reactor-slated-to-repurpose-coal-burning-power-plants-into-clean-energy-generators/ https://holtecinternational.com/2023/01/10/holtecs-smr-160-n...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Adding even more moving parts and maintenance costs will definitely solve it. Yes. And naval reactors definitely are the cheap, simple energy source of the future. This is why noone has built anything else since the 50s. A non-modular demo scale pebble bed reactor also ain't it. But you've already revealed your hand with that comment about continuing to burn coal juust in case it's not vaporware, so why are you still bothering to pretend it was about fantasy nuclear reactors?