3 ms·

I mean y'all can downvote all you like but that doesn't change the financials of shuttering a powerplant. How tf you gonna retain the skilled employees required

• Dylan16807 3y ago
  So don't furlough people...? Maintenance can be spread over the entire year, and you can use designs that don't need a big workforce just to run. Peaker plants already exist, this isn't a crazy new realm in the operational sense.
  • forgetfreeman 3y ago
    I dunno, seems pretty wild to me. If the thing isn't generating electricity you're sitting there with a huge labor bill and nothing to show for it. That this sort of thing might make sense from a purely technical perspective seems reasonable to me but I don't see how you'd fund it.
    • Dylan16807 3y ago
      If you're worried strictly about profits, and not a strong desire to avoid CO2 emissions, we can imagine a carbon tax. $100 per ton would cost a coal plant 10¢/kWh on top of operating costs. So if a carbon-free source gets even close for operating costs, then that's a lot of money to fund a backup plant and still come out ahead. And this doesn't really require a tax. We could imagine an electrical company pricing out their aversion to carbon in cents per kWh out of their own volition or because of customer demand.
      • forgetfreeman 3y ago
        Given we live in a capitalist society that profit motive takes primacy isn't really in question.