|
We're pretty much hosed, aren't we lol
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
We can't save the biosphere and avoid trashing increasing swaths of the global South, what will the bean counters think?!😡
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
*half of a US state gets swallowed by the ocean* Well at least the shareholders were happy for awhile What's really hosed is that some island nations are literally going to disappear but they just don't get a say in the matter, when I'm dead in the ground the fossil fuel industry will be burning even more than they are now lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 06:17
|
|
|
https://www.iwrpressedienst.de/ener...ilowatt-hour-en Hinkley getting a strike price of 15 cents per kWh, jesus. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/spain-confirms-nuclear-power-phase-out-extends-renewable-projects-deadlines-2023-12-27/ Spain exiting nuclear by 2035 due to old plants and renewing them not being viable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 10:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Needs scrutiny. The relative expenses and costs of nuclear don't necessarily translate to higher costs to the average electricity consumer once built and running; so nuclear being the "worse" choice as presented her is as I like say, an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. I mean, if you really want to fudge the numbers like that and completely ignore capital costs then renewables/storage become even better in comparison because generation with them becomes almost completely free. We pay the sun nothin'. It's not really a good argument to make IMO. quote:Also we don't have a fully renewable grid, nor do we have afaik, full hydrogen gas plants capable of replacing natural gas plants, so this seems like an odd comparison? A quick google suggests that the only operational hydrogen plants are natgas who use a blend. That's better than coal but not better than nuclear as of now. Dante asked about how the newly constructed gas plants are going to be used after decarbonization and I was speaking in that context. IIRC most developed countries plan for power sector decarbonization in the mid '30s (optimistically) to early '40(realistically). quote:And also well no, nuclear power plants provide all sorts of other benefits than power, for medical devices, research, materials, and possible supply of reactor fuel for fusion plants if that technology does continue to progress, so even in this hypothetical scenario you still want to keep the existing fission reactors going and to replace them with newer designs as they're developed. That's a good point. - I assume countries with nuclear weapons rely to some extent on their civilian commercial reactors for weapons production and might continue to operate them through subsidies indefinitely. - I have not heard of any substantial civilian scientific research being done at commercial nuclear power plants. There are a lot of nuclear research reactors all around the world for exactly this purpose and I don't know why you'd want to complicate the research work by also trying to commercially produce overpriced power for the grid with the research reactor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/microsoft-targets-nuclear-to-power-ai-operations-e10ff798 Microsoft working on a specialized AI agent to facilitate NRC applications for SMRs. quote:In the U.S., so far just one SMR developer, NuScale Power, has had its design approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The process cost NuScale around $500 million and its 12,000-page application had around two million pages of support materials. Ain't nobody reading all that poo poo, that's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:08
|
|
|
huh, for comparisons sake because i was curious, still cheaper than the estimated cost of bringing a new drug to market edit: but to be fair, a successful new drug has such a huge profit margin i can't see selling modular reactors to come anywhere close
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/microsoft-targets-nuclear-to-power-ai-operations-e10ff798 The 12,000 pages are getting read. The two million pages maybe not so much, but the applications get scrutinized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
Empire Wind 2 is dead.  Equinor and bp have terminated New York State’s Empire Wind 2 offshore wind farm – but a do-over isn’t out of the question. The two companies have agreed with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to terminate the Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificate (OREC) Agreement for the 1,260 megawatt (MW) Empire Wind 2. Equinor and bp said that the decision to terminate Empire Wind 2 was due to “commercial conditions driven by inflation, interest rates, and supply chain disruptions” that prevented its existing OREC agreement from being viable. The state’s utility regulator, the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC), refused to renegotiate Empire Wind’s contracts at higher prices despite an appeal from Equinor and bp. However, the two companies are still very much at the table, as they called this cancellation a “reset” in their announcement and say they are “seeking new offtake opportunities.” They said that the already mature project might get a second life in some shape or form because there’s support from the state to revive the faltering projects. (...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 06:34
|
|
|
Finnish renewable dependant energy policy strikes again. Tomorrow we have peak electricity price of 235c/kWh, while the daily average is 110 c/kWh. Who knew that it is stupid to rely on wind and solar when we have winters where there is no real wind or sunshine, and electricity demand is at its peak. Absolute idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:Finnish renewable dependant energy policy strikes again. Tomorrow we have peak electricity price of 235c/kWh, while the daily average is 110 c/kWh. Finland isn't relying on solar and wind in winters, that's just market priced electricity schemes working as indented. Were our grid relying on them totally we'd be getting outages. If you don't want a volatile electric bill, just get a normal contract from electric company with steady rates where peaks are taken into account and calculated into annual estimate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:28
|
|
|
Glah posted:Finland isn't relying on solar and wind in winters, that's just market priced electricity schemes working as indented. Were our grid relying on them totally we'd be getting outages. If you don't want a volatile electric bill, just get a normal contract from electric company with steady rates where peaks are taken into account and calculated into annual estimate. I don't know if that's "relying" but wind seems to vary by like a factor of 10 day to day which contributes a lot to the volatility. It does look like OL3 effectively halved co2 emissions vs last year though, so  
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:00
|
|
|
quote:That's a good point. I mainly vaguely remember how research was also being done at Chernobyl, so I imagine there's some kind of partnership between civilian nuclear power plants and universities and production of isotopes. I did a quick google and this seems to be the case even of civilian power generation stations, see here: https://www.brucepower.com/resources/publications/ and scroll down to "Bruce Power isotopes" paper; this is just a quick glance and google but it seems like it isn't just research reactors that produce medical isotopes and would presumably if its compatible. GABA ghoul posted:I mean, if you really want to fudge the numbers like that and completely ignore capital costs then renewables/storage become even better in comparison because generation with them becomes almost completely free. We pay the sun nothin'. It's not really a good argument to make IMO. So what this says to me is that there isn't really practical evidence that hydrogen plants can in practice, completely replace nuclear for base load power. The plants you speak of don't exist yet, and just like new nuclear plants, may not exist for decades. I was thinking you meant cost in terms of the consumer, not capital costs. I'm not sure if this is really a relevant point in either case, renewables are only starting to displace coal and other fossil fuels because of massive government intervention and subsidies and other policy implementations (despite Manchin's best efforts). If we could wave a magic wand and have world governments throw money at the wall then of course they should be rolling out nuclear as much as they can, because the capital costs don't matter in such a scenario. Sure renewables capital costs ARE cheaper but: 1. We still have issues of transmission and storage, which haven't yet been solved; and currently previously mentioned proposals for storage like the australia water storage thing don't seem to yet be working out. So currently there's a sort of soft limit to how much renewables that be built out before it doesn't add anything because we can't store the excess power or transmit it to where its needed. 2. These hydrogen blend plants aren't as proven as nuclear, and don't seem to be significantly less emissions? One article suggests that hydrogen blending only results in a 7% decrease in GHG emissions; while nuclear is clearly vastly less? Maybe its worth the cost? This Forbes article suggests that a 20% blend, is about the maximum that can be safely done. And has other problems, like it prevents/delays refitting buildings to being more electrified, might be more expensive for consumers, and may not actually be more effective then simply rolling out nuclear. If the likely practical blend is only like 20% and we can't actually build out these gas plants because it means building the gas pipe infrastructure where it would be impractical; than clearly we still need a considerable amount of nuclear if we actually want to decarbonize the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
Glah posted:Finland isn't relying on solar and wind in winters, that's just market priced electricity schemes working as indented. Were our grid relying on them totally we'd be getting outages. If you don't want a volatile electric bill, just get a normal contract from electric company with steady rates where peaks are taken into account and calculated into annual estimate. If there is no wind Finland is heavily dependent on import energy, with corresponding price fluctuations. Without imports there indeed would be outages. So functionally yes you can argue we are dependent on wind and or imports, but as we see its completely hosed situation anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:01
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:If there is no wind Finland is heavily dependent on import energy, with corresponding price fluctuations. Without imports there indeed would be outages. So functionally yes you can argue we are dependent on wind and or imports, but as we see its completely hosed situation anyways. Well yes, the system is built in a way where when demand can't be met, we'll import it. And the market price fluctuates accordingly. That's kinda the point with market electricity schemes, you'll have more volatile electric bills because you're betting there being more good times than bad. But I wouldn't be saying it is "absolute idiocy" when prices peak when there's -30c outside, because well, you can't expect the demand of electricity to stay stable, especially during winter. If you want to play it safe as a consumer just get normal contract with fixed rates. You might not be laughing on your way to bank when there's cheap energy and partying it up like some Tokyo salaryman in the 80's, but then conversely these price peaks don't really hurt you either. That's how I do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
Glah posted:Well yes, the system is built in a way where when demand can't be met, we'll import it. And the market price fluctuates accordingly. That's kinda the point with market electricity schemes, you'll have more volatile electric bills because you're betting there being more good times than bad. But I wouldn't be saying it is "absolute idiocy" when prices peak when there's -30c outside, because well, you can't expect the demand of electricity to stay stable, especially during winter. Build it in a way that it can be met, obviously. Or close enought to not make the system poo poo the bed in basic winter conditions. That means building a system that doesn't rely on wind and so on, because they cannot meet the demand, when it matters the most. Wind power is only as cheap as it is (when it is windy) because all of the cost is of not having wind is directly sourced to the customers who need the electricity anyway. The downside we see right now. Also, it is not just about you or me as a consumer. It is way more detrimental to industry, where stable prices are important. You cannot just decide to not run your steel mill or something when the prices are absurd like tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:Build it in a way that it can be met, obviously. Or close enought to not make the system poo poo the bed in basic winter conditions. That means building a system that doesn't rely on wind and so on, because they cannot meet the demand, when it matters the most. Wind power is only as cheap as it is (when it is windy) because all of the cost is of not having wind is directly sourced to the customers who need the electricity anyway. The downside we see right now. I think the problem is this isn't easy to do. Esp. considering market forces. If its cheap to import energy overall, this reduces incentives for local utilities to build out additional generation capacity considering the high costs; you need a sustained government commitment (like the construction of the newer nuclear power plants) to get that level of energy autarky which also might not be efficient overall even if good for the consumer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:Build it in a way that it can be met, obviously. Or close enought to not make the system poo poo the bed in basic winter conditions. That means building a system that doesn't rely on wind and so on, because they cannot meet the demand, when it matters the most. Wind power is only as cheap as it is (when it is windy) because all of the cost is of not having wind is directly sourced to the customers who need the electricity anyway. The downside we see right now. I wouldn't call current conditions "basic winter conditions" when it's been -20 to -30c in the south and more (less?) in the north for almost a week coinciding with problems in regular power plants, rather than once a decade phenomena. Now I'm not saying that that kind of price fluctuations is in anyway not problematic for consumers. I'm not even saying that we don't need more baseline power. Hell build four more nuclear reactors, I don't mind. I'm just saying that using a consumer electricity market scheme pricing peaking during a freak weather as an example of how crap wind power is and how it is absolute idiocy to build it maybe isn't most informative opinion about Finnish energy infra. Glah fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jan 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Glah posted:I wouldn't call current conditions "basic winter conditions" when it's been -20 to -30c in the south and more (less?) in the north for almost a week coinciding with problems in regular power plants, rather than once a decade phenomena. Now I'm not saying that that kind of price fluctuations is in anyway not problematic for consumers. I'm not even saying that we don't need more baseline power. Hell build four more nuclear reactors, I don't mind. I'm just saying that using a consumer electricity market scheme pricing peaking during a freak weather as an example of how crap wind power is and how it is absolute idiocy to build it maybe isn't most informative opinion about Finnish energy infra. It is not idiocy to build wind power. It is idiocy to rely on it, considering where we live and when we need the power. Also, it is idiocy to price the wind power the way it is done now. e: Just got a text message from Finngrid authority. Begging to please use less electricity because the grid is literally running out. System working as intended I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Sure renewables capital costs ARE cheaper but: It takes as long as building a nuclear plant to build new transmission lines in the US the way things are. The capacity to manufacture power transformers for example is not there and from experience it takes about 2 years to build a facility and about 2+ more to iron out the bugs in the equipment and product. There is one company in the US that can build 765kv transformers (after a 25 year gap) and only a few that can reliably build 345kv+, I can think of 4 in Europe and they're all booked out for years. I have no direct knowledge of the HVDC side of things but I cant imagine the capacity is there either for the buildout needed. Yes, I know this is not the Energy Transmission Megathread. The all in on renewables approach is kicking the can down the road and will keep combustion generation going longer than the parallel path of renewables plus nuclear. For example there are about 23 million US households on private wells that would get really pissed off if they had to start a generator to take a poo poo in the middle of the night. The actual in use solution for energy "storage" is backup generators, there is a major SE utility that has a group setting up backup generators for businesses for the expected power interruptions from a grid consisting of intermittent sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:It is not idiocy to build wind power. It is idiocy to rely on it, considering where we live and when we need the power. Also, it is idiocy to price the wind power the way it is done now. I didn't get spot pricing so hahah heatpump goes brrrr or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:Build it in a way that it can be met, obviously. Or close enought to not make the system poo poo the bed in basic winter conditions. That means building a system that doesn't rely on wind and so on, because they cannot meet the demand, when it matters the most. Wind power is only as cheap as it is (when it is windy) because all of the cost is of not having wind is directly sourced to the customers who need the electricity anyway. The downside we see right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Why should Finland expend a lot of money and effort into building a 100% self-sufficient energy grid, when it can instead import energy from the rest of Europe (and export excess energy in times of abundant energy)? Is it importing energy from places that are burning coal or natural gas or wood pellets?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I didn't get spot pricing so hahah heatpump goes brrrr or something? I mean if you dont care that many industries and people are hosed then hahah I guess? I have fixed pricing but thats not reality for all. DTurtle posted:Why should Finland expend a lot of money and effort into building a 100% self-sufficient energy grid, when it can instead import energy from the rest of Europe (and export excess energy in times of abundant energy)? In ideal world, sure. But as it is the close by generation and trasport infra is no where near sufficient. The grid is running out of power as it is. Plus, if we would import from central Europe we would be importing coal or gas powered electricity. Apart from Scandinavia, from which we import most of the energy anyway. We shut down several megawats worth of fossil energy generation in the past and now we see the results. The big issue is that wind power companies can just sell their electricity as they create it, at cheap price when it is windy and demand is lower. Most other forms of elecricity cannot compete with that price when it is not cold, meaning it is not profitable to keep them available when they are needed. Now that wind does not exist, and the grid is in danger of getting overloaded we have no capacity to adjust. The wind power should be priced in the way the we could keep this very needed adjustment capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:I mean if you dont care that many industries and people are hosed I don't get this concern for "industry." The industry makes a choice. It expects that the savings from the policy will be greater than the costs. It it guesses wrong, it guesses wrong. My company gets a discount on its electrical rates because the utility can call it up and say "Shut everything off." This happens maybe one day a year. If it happens often enough that the discount doesn't make up for the days it has to shut down and pay everyone to not do any work, then it can switch to a different contract where the utility can't shed its load at will. Oh well. Same thing. The industries in question were planning that it would be one way, but it's the other way. So what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So what this says to me is that there isn't really practical evidence that hydrogen plants can in practice, completely replace nuclear for base load power. The plants you speak of don't exist yet, and just like new nuclear plants, may not exist for decades. IIRC Siemens calls their hydrogen compatible turbines "fuel switch"- something. Dunno what branding other manufacturers use or if there is a more general industry term for them. The turbines(and plants)are certified for up to 75% hydrogen out of the box and can go to 100% after applying an upgrade kit. Here are more details https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/stories/hydrogen-ready.html quote:I was thinking you meant cost in terms of the consumer, not capital costs. I'm not sure if this is really a relevant point in either case, renewables are only starting to displace coal and other fossil fuels because of massive government intervention and subsidies and other policy implementations (despite Manchin's best efforts). If we could wave a magic wand and have world governments throw money at the wall then of course they should be rolling out nuclear as much as they can, because the capital costs don't matter in such a scenario. Sure renewables capital costs ARE cheaper but: - In general, capital costs are fully passed on to consumers and included in the costs to them. These two are not independent of each other. - My point was that your argument ("we can just socialize power production capital costs and let consumers only pay for operating costs") is not a pro-nuclear but an anti-nuclear argument because nuclear power fares even worse against renewable+storage in such a scenario. We shouldn't use that argument at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 00:14
|
|
|
The electricity price fluctuations aren't because of our reliance on wind power. It's because we have been reliant on imports from Russian nuclear power plants and those are not available anymore. This isn't our first hellishly cold winter and the estimates for Friday were that we don't even quite reach a new record in consumption. In previous times we didn't have wind power either and Olkiluoto 3 wasn't operational, but Sosnovy Bor was churning all the electricity we wanted. I don't like your idea of using some other source than wind power, because it would make everyone's electricity bill higher on average. Even your fixed price contract would be noticeably more expensive since the power company couldn't rely on the regular availability of cheap wind power. After all, Finland doesn't really have cheap options unless we decide to replace all the wind power and imports with coal power, and even that would probably be a bit more expensive. Our other options would nuclear power, natural gas or peat power plants. Nuclear would obviously be the best option, but we would have had to build couple new plants every decade to retain the knowledge, we would have had to make that decision 50 years ago and stick to it. No point crying over the missed opportunity. Natural gas wouldn't help either, too expensive option without the Russian imports. Peat is considered about as bad as coal, and it would also have severe ecological impact in Finland if we did it at required scale. There's a website that Finns who are thinking about spot electricity should check out, [url]https://liukuri.fi/laskuri[url]. You can download your historical consumption data from Fingrid and upload it to the site and it will calculate how bit the cost difference would have been against a fixed price contract. The biggest question Friday's prices have raised me is, what kind of power plant is selling electricity at 235 cents per kWh? Is there a company running around buying all the AA batteries they can find from grocery stores and wiring them to the grid?! If a power plant's production costs are over 2€/kWh they simply can't exist, they would be able to sell electricity maybe once a decade. I can't think of a plant technology that would suffer such a catastrophic rise in costs because of cold weather. And it would seem overtly risky to offer your electricity for such a price with the assumption that no one can underbid them. I had the opposite question during the Kinect Energy debacle. The way I understood electricity market it didn't seem possible for a single company to drive the price that low, even if their bid had minus one million per kWh. Kinect Energy's offer on that day was for a bit under 6GW and Finland's demand was around 12GW. So the price should have been set by the remaining 6GW offered by other companies that didn't make erronous bids. But then I read and article that explained this issue. I learned that's Finland's old nuclear plants and some other plants that can't adjust their production always do "unlimited" bids. They offer to sell their production no matter how low the price will fall. So Kinect Energy and these unlimited was enough to cover all the demand and we got weird day of electricity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 03:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is it importing energy from places that are burning coal or natural gas or wood pellets? Almost all of the import is from Sweden, or Norway through Sweden. Currently about 10% of imports are from Estonia which probably includes shale oil production. Usually Finland exports to Estonia. https://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market/power-system/
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 03:24
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:I mean if you dont care that many industries and people are hosed then hahah I guess? I have fixed pricing but thats not reality for all. Mostly I think if they don't like this situation, then build more nuclear in this country which is the best option out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:55
|
|
|
No industry in Finland is 'hosed' because of a brief electricity price spike, stop being dumb. Anyone who can't handle the spikes in price can get a fixed price contract, just like people have done for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 10:13
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:In ideal world, sure. But as it is the close by generation and trasport infra is no where near sufficient. The grid is running out of power as it is. Plus, if we would import from central Europe we would be importing coal or gas powered electricity. Apart from Scandinavia, from which we import most of the energy anyway. We shut down several megawats worth of fossil energy generation in the past and now we see the results. That will be cheaper than trying to build out Finnish energy production so much as to always have a surplus (which then can't be sold).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 12:38
|
|
|
Citation required
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 12:49
|
|
|
The price spike in Finland isn't only caused by the expected lack of wind power. There are also three power plants unexpectedly offline due to malfunctions and we are missing 1GW of production from them. One of them is Finland's largest and most modern coal power plant in Meri-Pori, another is either bio fuel or natural gas plant in Vuosaari. Third plant is in Ääneskoski, but I haven't been able to figure out what type it is. Hydro plant? This reminds me of the situation in Texas where many people blamed wind power, but as much or even bigger blame went for all the fossil fuel plants that malfunctioned due to the cold weather.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 13:28
|
|
|
Yes, if the backup power plants were working this would be much less bad. The fact that three of the backups failed when needed show that it may be necessary for the regulator to verify that backups are actually available. These plants are only running a few days/year, so there isn't much incentive for owners to maintain them.  I don't really understand why the links to Sweden are not maxed out (I believe it's 1200 MW to SE1 and 1500 MW to SE2 or something like that,) given the price disparity. You can see that the Estonian price is balanced. Times are in CET, this is Svenska Kraftnät's overview at https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/ Grey Area fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Citation required quote:Contracts for the 400 kV Aurora Line’s first phase have already been signed, Fingrid reports. Construction of the first phase will begin as early as in fall of 2022. quote:It’s taken 14 years longer than planned, but the Olkiluoto 3 reactor is providing a serious boost to the Nordic country’s electricity self-sufficiency. 40 times the cost for twice the capacity. Six times as long a construction phase. DTurtle fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah but a nuclear reactor is a capital asset, you make the power there. A transmission line is just a way to buy or sell power to someone else, its a road, and its not useful if there are no goods to ship back and forth. That is a huge difference in value proposition, so saying its 40x the cost doesn't mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
Why would I sign up for an expensive electric plan with my local utility when I could just buy an extension cord that goes all the way to my neighbor's house?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Yeah but a nuclear reactor is a capital asset, you make the power there. A transmission line is just a way to buy or sell power to someone else, its a road, and its not useful if there are no goods to ship back and forth. That is a huge difference in value proposition, so saying its 40x the cost doesn't mean anything. It is cheaper to build transportation infrastructure for importing from other countries than to expand production so much as to always have a surplus. Roughly by a factor of twenty when comparing it with nuclear power. QuarkJets posted:Why would I sign up for an expensive electric plan with my local utility when I could just buy an extension cord that goes all the way to my neighbor's house? And yes, obviously that doesn’t help when the entire city has an outage, but then we are also looking at power production and transmission on a continental level. And the chance of there not being enough production continent-wide is negligible. DTurtle fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:It does when we are talking about the exceptionsl times where production is at a minimum and demand at a maximum and how to address that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:If you ignore the cost of the actual electricity, maybe Ignoring the cost of the electricity is nuclear fandom 101, though. If you are concerned about the possibility of industry facing high prices or supply disruption for a few days a year you should be concerned about asking them to pay twice what their competitors pay for electricity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 21:50
|
|
