And now ISO-NE is trying to figure out what to do about American-imposed tariffs on energy imports from Canada, and possible Canadian retaliation. A couple of nuclear plants would make a lot of difference.
A combination of Net Zero, All-Electric Everything and a lot more "renewables" and storage would have made your "dramatic grid" far more dramatic and far more expensive. It might yet.
Great article, Meredith! It highlights what ought to be obvious: the first question should be how we operate the grid for maximum stability and reliability. Constraining this answer with a target fuel mix determined by benchmarks that have more to do with a flawed ideology than with human flourishing has led us down a dangerous path. Alex Epstein has done some great work here.
I loved your book that I just finished reading and I love reading your knowledgeable blog evaluating pricing and fuel supply issues on the nations RTO grids. That being said I would love to see you once in a while compare a specific set of recent pricing/ fuel supply conditions with what they would be if we’re relying 100% on nuclear for our electrical supply under the old vertical integrated, PUC governed grid arrangement that made creation of the USA grid the greatest technological innovation of the 20th Century ( I know, I know that’s my version of fantasy football, but you can’t give up hope). When I retired from VY in 2008 we were supplying electricity to Green Mt Power at a FIXED price of 4.6 cents per Kwhr or $46 per Mwhr. I was good friends with our purchasing agent, who told me confidentially that our latest purchase of fuel (I.e. uranium) good for 18 months of electrical production was about $20 million. Doing the math on that I calculated that our fuel cost per Kwhr was about 0.5 cents. I of course realize with inflation that those costs would be higher today, but no where near as high as the numbers you are quoting here for CO2 emitting fuels. Not being a climate scientist I try to stay neutral on the subject as much as I can, but if they are correct, a cursory inspection of the ISO-NE grid screen shot you posted tells anyone with a lick of common sense that the current system of controlling the grid is going backwards in terms of any effort to reduce CO2 emissions.
It appears that stability is not a primary focus of ISO-NE. Perhaps if in the next cold snap, the power goes out because the wind isn't blowing, or they don't have enough gas, it will focus attention on the importance of stability vs. greenwashing
Thanks for this. Since the discussion started I also wondered about the oil, and what type. The technology using the fuel matters too. I would have expected that the oil in question would mostly be heavy oil No. 6( residual oil) as its the cheapest and its burned in either diesel engines or more likely Rankine cycle boilers with STG (The Canadian East cost has some plants like this). If they using No. 2 (or diesel/LFO distillate) which is much more expensive they may be using in dual-fuel SCGT (peaking) or CCGT baseload. I bet really its mostly heavy oil in Rankine boilers + STG.
Yes. You notice that there's about twice as much residual oil as diesel in storage for power plants. One man I know says that once the temperature drops, the "s-it burners" are fired up. He's a pretty knowlegable guy. He knows.
Meredith - wonderful investigative work! Sadly it seems nat gas will be the go to fuel for decades as new nukes or any other low cost magic power source have close to zero chance of entering the fuel mix, especially in the northeast anti nuke corridor.
We had the same winter peak in Florida and coal and oil got burned to displace the gas. The problem with gas is when need it so does everyone else so it's delivered price is very susceptible to fat tail risk events
Very good article! Since 1991, 200+600+600+930+600+600 or about 3770 MW of nuclear capacity in New England has been lost to decommissioning. That's YR, CY, MP1, MY, VY and Pilgrim. Pardon the round off. That's a lot of capacity!
There were pressing reasons for each of the shutdowns at their time , but it certainly seems short sided now. It's follows the previous comment as a huge WHAT IF! Somebody or some entities should get the no bell prize for short sightedness! 😶
Good to hear from you, Bill! In the old days, people were proud of "Yankee ingenuity." Nowadays, too many people up here seem to have turned into luddites.
"pressing reasons". You mean normal maintenance as is necessary on all industrial infrastructure, and especially aircraft. You could easily come up with "pressing reasons" why any aircraft over 10yrs old needs to be scrapped.
Excellent point. If an airplane needs refurbishing, it is a cost consideration. For nuclear, everything is a "moral" consideration.
I was at a meeting where a woman my age made a heartfelt appeal to shut down all nuclear plants because "I don't want my granddaughter to live on a radioactive planet!"
Sounds dumb to me. Why not store methanol, it burns as clean as natural gas in gas turbines but at a higher efficiency? Burns in high compression engines more efficiently and much cleaner than diesel, at much lower cost.
Easy to transport by pipeline, truck or rail. Twice the energy density of CNG @ 3000psi. Easiest fuel to store, spills are benign. Can be produced for 13 cents/liter from coal, stranded gas or biomass. Vast amounts of forest biomass available for local conversion to methanol due to the dire need to harvest that biomass for wildfire protection.
Could it be the Malthusians who run the Western World are blockading methanol fuel just as they are blocking Nuclear Power? Hegemonists, just hate competition.
Should you really want to dig into that subject, you'll being going down a long and deep rabbit hole.
I read an article a quite awhile ago about some Caribbean Islands were planning to use their indigenous stranded gas resources to make methanol and then run that in gas turbines for electricity generation. And I read they got a lot of flak from the industry for having the audacity to implement such an "unapproved" strategy.
Oh, the what-if’s! What if Vermont Yankee had not closed? One can wish.
I totally agree.
And now ISO-NE is trying to figure out what to do about American-imposed tariffs on energy imports from Canada, and possible Canadian retaliation. A couple of nuclear plants would make a lot of difference.
A combination of Net Zero, All-Electric Everything and a lot more "renewables" and storage would have made your "dramatic grid" far more dramatic and far more expensive. It might yet.
Great article, Meredith! It highlights what ought to be obvious: the first question should be how we operate the grid for maximum stability and reliability. Constraining this answer with a target fuel mix determined by benchmarks that have more to do with a flawed ideology than with human flourishing has led us down a dangerous path. Alex Epstein has done some great work here.
Meridth,
I loved your book that I just finished reading and I love reading your knowledgeable blog evaluating pricing and fuel supply issues on the nations RTO grids. That being said I would love to see you once in a while compare a specific set of recent pricing/ fuel supply conditions with what they would be if we’re relying 100% on nuclear for our electrical supply under the old vertical integrated, PUC governed grid arrangement that made creation of the USA grid the greatest technological innovation of the 20th Century ( I know, I know that’s my version of fantasy football, but you can’t give up hope). When I retired from VY in 2008 we were supplying electricity to Green Mt Power at a FIXED price of 4.6 cents per Kwhr or $46 per Mwhr. I was good friends with our purchasing agent, who told me confidentially that our latest purchase of fuel (I.e. uranium) good for 18 months of electrical production was about $20 million. Doing the math on that I calculated that our fuel cost per Kwhr was about 0.5 cents. I of course realize with inflation that those costs would be higher today, but no where near as high as the numbers you are quoting here for CO2 emitting fuels. Not being a climate scientist I try to stay neutral on the subject as much as I can, but if they are correct, a cursory inspection of the ISO-NE grid screen shot you posted tells anyone with a lick of common sense that the current system of controlling the grid is going backwards in terms of any effort to reduce CO2 emissions.
These things are easy to see if you look at the data and the costs. Most people only listen to the slogans, alas, and don't try to dig into the facts.
Meredith, thank you for making the grid understandable! You offer a service that is invaluable. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you!
It appears that stability is not a primary focus of ISO-NE. Perhaps if in the next cold snap, the power goes out because the wind isn't blowing, or they don't have enough gas, it will focus attention on the importance of stability vs. greenwashing
Excellent Meredith, just FYI you spelled baseload wrong ;)
Also love the articulation between fuel types, it is all about the BTU’s !
Thanks Meredith, I know I aam guilty of many of those questions
Thanks for this. Since the discussion started I also wondered about the oil, and what type. The technology using the fuel matters too. I would have expected that the oil in question would mostly be heavy oil No. 6( residual oil) as its the cheapest and its burned in either diesel engines or more likely Rankine cycle boilers with STG (The Canadian East cost has some plants like this). If they using No. 2 (or diesel/LFO distillate) which is much more expensive they may be using in dual-fuel SCGT (peaking) or CCGT baseload. I bet really its mostly heavy oil in Rankine boilers + STG.
Yes. You notice that there's about twice as much residual oil as diesel in storage for power plants. One man I know says that once the temperature drops, the "s-it burners" are fired up. He's a pretty knowlegable guy. He knows.
Very nice article. Thanks for putting it together!
Thank you, Isaac!
That is a great illuminating example. Thank you.
Meredith - wonderful investigative work! Sadly it seems nat gas will be the go to fuel for decades as new nukes or any other low cost magic power source have close to zero chance of entering the fuel mix, especially in the northeast anti nuke corridor.
We had the same winter peak in Florida and coal and oil got burned to displace the gas. The problem with gas is when need it so does everyone else so it's delivered price is very susceptible to fat tail risk events
Very good article! Since 1991, 200+600+600+930+600+600 or about 3770 MW of nuclear capacity in New England has been lost to decommissioning. That's YR, CY, MP1, MY, VY and Pilgrim. Pardon the round off. That's a lot of capacity!
There were pressing reasons for each of the shutdowns at their time , but it certainly seems short sided now. It's follows the previous comment as a huge WHAT IF! Somebody or some entities should get the no bell prize for short sightedness! 😶
Good to hear from you, Bill! In the old days, people were proud of "Yankee ingenuity." Nowadays, too many people up here seem to have turned into luddites.
"pressing reasons". You mean normal maintenance as is necessary on all industrial infrastructure, and especially aircraft. You could easily come up with "pressing reasons" why any aircraft over 10yrs old needs to be scrapped.
Excellent point. If an airplane needs refurbishing, it is a cost consideration. For nuclear, everything is a "moral" consideration.
I was at a meeting where a woman my age made a heartfelt appeal to shut down all nuclear plants because "I don't want my granddaughter to live on a radioactive planet!"
I wondered where her granddaughter plans to live.
I love boring!
Sounds dumb to me. Why not store methanol, it burns as clean as natural gas in gas turbines but at a higher efficiency? Burns in high compression engines more efficiently and much cleaner than diesel, at much lower cost.
Easy to transport by pipeline, truck or rail. Twice the energy density of CNG @ 3000psi. Easiest fuel to store, spills are benign. Can be produced for 13 cents/liter from coal, stranded gas or biomass. Vast amounts of forest biomass available for local conversion to methanol due to the dire need to harvest that biomass for wildfire protection.
Could it be the Malthusians who run the Western World are blockading methanol fuel just as they are blocking Nuclear Power? Hegemonists, just hate competition.
You vill install renewables and storage und you vill like it. ;-)
I generally only look at things that are currently being used, so I have not looked at methanol. It might be a good idea.
Should you really want to dig into that subject, you'll being going down a long and deep rabbit hole.
I read an article a quite awhile ago about some Caribbean Islands were planning to use their indigenous stranded gas resources to make methanol and then run that in gas turbines for electricity generation. And I read they got a lot of flak from the industry for having the audacity to implement such an "unapproved" strategy.