TheSausageKing t1_ix1w8cm wrote
The problem is we’ve been doing none of the above for a long time. No cape wind, no grid connection to hydro in Canada, no nuclear, and also no gas pipelines.
Until we we actually start building things again, I’m voting for it all and against politicians who block it.
dew2459 t1_ix2c9gt wrote
>no nuclear
We are shutting down nuclear plants in the northeast and not really replacing them with anything except more natural gas plants, and a little bit of solar.
Even if Cape Wind had actually completed, it was only going to be about 2/3 the power Pilgrim nuclear plant could generate (before it shut).
We are going backwards on electricity generation, and depending more and more on those natural gas power plants ... without even the simple infrastructure to pipe cheap gas in from the nearby Marcellus shale fields.
I have to agree the current politicians are failing us.
LuiShirosagi20 t1_ix2qlse wrote
Nuclear Energy is by far the best possible idea, if handled correctly. Knowing America however, it'll be handled in the worst possible way, if implemented at all.
aseriousfailure t1_ix3f3x0 wrote
Nuclear's been slandered by the fossil fuel bigwigs because it is the best clean energy competitor we have right now to fossil fuels.
barry_abides t1_ix3k5vc wrote
The good news is there are multiple offshore wind projects in the process of approval and development in federal waters off of MA - thousands of megawatts (far beyond the capacity of Pilgrim power station). The state already has power purchase agreements in place.
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/massachusetts-activities
Wrexem t1_ix35hdw wrote
Why build a pipeline when you could build a plant near the fields? Shipping it as electricity almost has to be the best option right?
mmelectronic t1_ix3e9ue wrote
Transmission line losses would probably make it less efficient than a pipeline. Otherwise they would
movdqa t1_ix3ystg wrote
You also have less risk with distributed production due to outages in production or transmission system failures.
wittgensteins-boat t1_ix683ng wrote
Power lines have their own capital cost, and take years to build, and obtain land and permits for, and have power loses ranging from 8 to 15%. Most major powerlines are at their limit because of a variety of reasons, including the process to recoup the cost of building them, once created.
https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses.
somegridplayer t1_ix3dpnt wrote
wittgensteins-boat t1_ix671fk wrote
What is the failure of government that th you are against? ?
Specifity needed.
Electric plants are created by non government corporations.
The power line from Quebec through Maine restarted construction after the Maine Supreme Court overturned parts of the Maine referendum law halting it
Coal and oil and nuclear plants have gone out of operation because of cheap natural gas, also provided by non governmental corporations.
Wind power and Solar power are growing rapidly from very small beginnings. It takes time to build an industry.
TheSausageKing t1_ix89hgh wrote
Pilgrim was closed because of local NIMBYs and politicians inc. Warren blocked every attempt to make it continue or expand, and pledged to phase out all nuclear by 2035. The costs of lawsuits and regulatory risks made it too expensive, so every company that wanted to make it work gave up.
So, yes, technically it was cost (and risk) that caused Pilgrim to close, but it was costs created by protestors and politicians.
Had the project been welcomed with open arms, it would be operating today.
wittgensteins-boat t1_ixamr1y wrote
Warren has no authority to block anything. She is not the NRC, not FERC, nor a shareholder.
Entergy already had the nuclear license extension in hand, for the extended life of the reactor. The plant would need major rebuilding as a 50 year old project.
Selling electricity at a loss compared to ability to recover new expenditure of capital for repairs is decisive.
When natural gas was tremendously cheap, and a natural gas powered electric plant easy to build or convert from oil, nuclear did not demonstrate capability for return on capital for an aging plant and showed low prospects with gas likely to stay cheap for the coming forseeable future and decade, in a changing electricity market regime.
TheSausageKing t1_ixb19ru wrote
You don’t think a sitting senator writing dozens of letters to the NRC and publicly opposing a plant in her district makes a difference in the odds that plant happens?
ok. 👍
wittgensteins-boat t1_ixbj8p4 wrote
The plant had the license, and authority to continue operating.
This was an economic decision of the follow-on owner, Entergy, subsequent to Boston Edison's sale to Entergy, deciding to exit. Entergy had received a license extension in 2006, relicensed through 2026, but exited in, 2019, not even bothering to take six more years of operating income on the plant.
Entergy transferred to a decommissioning organization, and exited the merchant nuclear power business, fulfilling its corporate plan to divest itself of merchant nuclear assets. It continues to operate nuclear plants in its home utility territory in Southern US.
References.
"Accelerated Decommissioning of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station: A Progress Report."
Power Magazine.
March 2022.
https://www.powermag.com/accelerated-decommissioning-of-pilgrim-nuclear-power-station-a-progress-report/
Entergy completes plan to exit Merchant Nuclear operations
Energy Corporate announcement
https://www.entergynewsroom.com/news/entergy-completes-sale-palisades-power-plant-holtec/
TheSausageKing t1_ix888ou wrote
Thank Sen Warren. She’s strongly anti-nuclear and was instrumental in forcing the Pilgrim plant to be closed.
> The Democratic presidential hopeful pledged to not only prevent the building of new power plants, but also said she would phase out all nuclear power by 2035 and replace it with renewables. After 52 years of producing energy, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station closed its doors on May 31.
DJScrubatires t1_ix3yfhz wrote
Blame NY. They are the ones blocking the pipes.
ChuckerGeorge t1_ix20qyv wrote
Blame Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine for us not having a connection to Quebec
mini4x t1_ix3snun wrote
Don't forget NY! They blocked the pipeline too.
Also we need to dump the Jones Act.
cheesy-alias t1_ix44370 wrote
Getting rid of the jones act would put an entire industry of American workers into the unemployment line while giving consumers little relief.
AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_ix5l06c wrote
>Getting rid of the jones act would put an entire industry of American workers into the unemployment line while giving consumers little relief.
Can you explain why you say this to me like I'm 5?
cheesy-alias t1_ix5lv9y wrote
The jones act ensures that goods moved between two American ports are transported on American flagged vessels, which provide high paying jobs to American sailors. If this was repealed, the goods would be moved by foreign flagged vessels. The savings on cost would not be passed onto the consumer but only increase these corporations profit margins. To get rid of the jones act would get rid of thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of highly skilled and paying jobs for Americans.
dew2459 t1_ixa5sbk wrote
>which provide high paying jobs to American sailors.
I don't think this is the original purpose of the Jones act.
It was #1 to keep a shipbuilding industry alive in the US. It was added just after WW1 to avoid the current hand-wringing about allowing advanced chip manufacturing to mostly move offshore.
The #2 reason was similar - to keep a ready supply of merchant marines (civilian sailors) available if needed for another major war (note, that is a different reason than "create high paying jobs", even if the two overlap).
The #3 reason is because foreign-flagged ships have almost zero safety checks (today probably 95%+ are flagged in Panama or Liberia because they are cheap to register there and have no real safety standards or inspections).
2tuna2furious t1_ix88q95 wrote
This is bullshit 😂😂😂
cheesy-alias t1_ix8bc8d wrote
How so?
2tuna2furious t1_ix8hkam wrote
US merchant marine employment is like 10,000 people and they wouldn’t necessarily be unemployed by a repeal in the Jones act
Domestically shipped goods are rarely shipped between US ports because the Jones Act makes it expensive compared to truck and rail. This congests the roads and increases carbon emissions. Areas like Puerto Rico and Hawaii don’t have truck or rail connections so they get screwed bigly
The Jones act has been in place for 100 years and the US merchant marine and shipping industry has been decimated anyway. It has been an abject failure
cheesy-alias t1_ix8lnzo wrote
I think you’re grossly underestimating with 10,000 jobs. Also, the merchant marine and commercial vessels, which are governed by the jones act, are two separate things. Most goods aren’t moved by US flagged vessels because not much is made here sadly. Most of the jones act vessels are moving your fuel, not the goods you see in Walmart. Advocating against the jones act is advocating against American workers and American unions.
hateEverett t1_ix33o5f wrote
Yeah! Thanks, officer duffy. Just turn that brain right off!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments