So much more energy, and more electricity. Impossible without nukes at the very least.

Comment

Comment by Willem Post on December 10, 2019 at 11:13am

With regard to nuclear power, it is not appropriate to mention Chernobyl over and over again. That reactor had NO CONTAINMENT vessel and other deficiencies.

However, ALL operating utility reactors in the US do have containment vessels.

In case of Three Mile Island, the radiation was effectively contained after an accident.

Today about 450 nuclear reactors are operating in 30 countries plus Taiwan, combined capacity of about 400,000 MW.

In 2018, these provided 2563 TWh of electricity, over 10% of the world’s electricity.

About 50 reactors are being constructed in 15 countries, in China, India, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.

Each year, the OECD’s International Energy Agency (IEA) presents its World Energy Outlook (WEO) report.

In the 2019 edition (WEO 2019), the IEA’s ‘Stated Policies Scenario’ sees installed nuclear capacity growth of over 15% from 2018 to 2040, reaching about 482,000 MW, with the increase concentrated heavily in Asia, and in particular China (34% of the total increase).

In 2040, nuclear would provide about 8.5% of the world's electricity.

The world's electricity is expected to increase at 2 to 3 percent per year from 2018 to 2040.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-futur...

Comment by Willem Post on October 2, 2019 at 11:49am

Some uninformed RE folks, without technical training, make silly statements regarding there being a "Vermont electricity mix" or a "New Hampshire electricity mix", etc.

What they do not know is that electricity travels as electromagnetic waves on the grid at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to Southern Florida in about 0.01 of a second. The electrons mostly vibrate in place at 60 cycles per second.

THE PHYSICAL CONDITION: All of us physically draw electricity from the NE grid, which was produced by a mix of sources. Wind and solar are about 6% of that mix, and nuclear, gas, and hydro total about 90%, on an annual basis

 

It does not matter what VT, or NH, etc., generates within its borders.

All of it, except a tiny fraction, gets fed into the NE grid, on which it travels at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida in about 0.01 of a second

It gets consumed as it spreads out on the grid.

 

What Vermont generates and feeds into the grid spreads out all over the grid as it is consumed

Any thoughts otherwise by certain RE folks are at variance with physical reality.

 

THE CONTRACT CONDITION: Vermont utilities are not allowed to draw electricity from the NE grid without contracts with an entity that generates and/or trades in electricity. The utilities would be stealing, if they withdrew electricity from the grid without contracts.

 

If a utility has contracts with only wind, solar, hydro and bio plants, then that utility can claim being 100% renewable, on a contract basis, i.e., on paper.

Those contracts come with renewable energy credits, RECs. The utility can sell those RECs to out of state entities. The utility received up to 5 c/kWh in the past, but now prices are about 2 c/kWh.

 

That means Vermont utilities need rate increases. GMP just got 5% for 2018, and likely will get another 5% for 2019, etc.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

 

However, when a utility sells the RECs, the utility and Vermont cannot count that RE towards any RE goals, i.e., having your cake and eating too is a no no, per FERC ruling.

Comment by Willem Post on October 2, 2019 at 11:32am

VERMONT CO2 EMISSIONS

Regarding Vermont’s CO2 emissions, here is an article that shows there has been an increase of CO2 emissions for the past 25 years.

About $5.0 billion were spent, about $200 million per year on all sorts of “energy measures”, including Efficiency Vermont.

Based on the latest Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update 1990 - 2015, issued June 2018, it appears there has been an increase in CO2eq emissions from 8.59 million metric ton in 1990 to 9.99 MMt in 2015. See table 1 of URL

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

 

WORLD CO2 EMISSIONS: The world’s energy related CO2 is shown in this URL and the table.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-ri...

 

Year	CO2eq Fossil and Cement only
	million metric ton
2014	36080
2015	36020
2016	36180
2017	36790

Comment by Willem Post on October 2, 2019 at 11:31am

Nuclear would greatly reduce NE grid CO2 emissions, because it has only 50 to 60 gram of CO2/kWh, on an A to Z bases, i.e., cradle to grave.

NE GRID CO2 EMISSIONS: The 2017 ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report shows the combustion CO2 emissions of the NE grid. See URL, page 33

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

 

ISO-NE records the electricity output, kWh, of each generator connected to the NE grid.

ISO-NE knows the efficiency, %, of each generator at each output from its performance curve.

ISO-NE knows the type fuel (oil, gas, coal, etc.) used by each generator.

 

ISO-NE fuel use and CO2 calculation = (output, at generator feed in point) / (eff, per performance chart) = fuel input, which yields combustion CO2.

The ISO-NE combustion CO2 reduction is almost entirely due to replacing coal with gas. The CO2 uptick in 2015 is due to closing Vermont Yankee.

See table

 

Year	Generation	NOx	SO2	CO2
	GWh	Lb/MWh	Lb/MWh	Lb/MWh
	Fed to grid	Combustion	Combustion	Combustion
2013	112,040	0.36	0.32	730
2014	108,356	0.38	0.22	726
2015	107,916	0.35	0.17	747
2016	105,570	0.31	0.08	710
2017	102,562	0.30	0.08	682

 

ISO-NE does not account for CO2 for extraction, processing, transport, etc., from mine/well to power plant

ISO-NE does not account for the self-use energy of each plant.

That means more thermal and electrical energy is used and more CO2 is emitted.

 

ISO-NE does not account for transmission and distribution losses from generator feed in point to user meters.

That means more fuel is used to have a kWh arrive at a user meter.

 

Plant actual thermal and electrical energy input = (output, at user meter) / {(1.08, upstream factor) x (1.08, T&D loss) x (eff, per performance chart) x (1.06, plants self use)}

The CO2 from mine/well to user meter is much higher than the combustion CO2 calculated by ISO-NE

Comment by Art Brigades on October 1, 2019 at 11:30pm

Lot of talk lately about Mainie leading the way to "carbon neutral."  Just what does that mean...what is Maine's carbon inventory? For starters, if we made our electricity completely CO2 free, we would reduce global CO2 1.4 MMT, from 36,000 MMT to 35,998.6 MMT, or 4/1000ths of one percent.

But electricity is just 8% of Maine's carbon footprint, you say. Let's go all electric, all carbon free to eliminate Maine's CO2 emissions. To electrify every BTU (nearly 400 trillion) of consumed energy in Maine (that's transport, heat, electricity, etc.) would require the equivalent of 34 Seabrook nuclear power plants, or 3500 Mars Hill Wind projects (98,000 turbines). Not to mention unfathomable amounts of transmission. Simply ludicrous notions even if the result were meaningful. 

Maine's entire carbon footprint (not even counting the offset for all our trees) contributes a mere 3/100ths of one percent to global CO2 emissions. Are we willing/able to go there, for 3/100ths of one percent global CO2 reduction?

Comment by Penny Gray on October 1, 2019 at 6:10pm

Nuclear R&D is where we should be shoveling all the wind subsidies.  Nothing else even comes close to replacing fossil fuels.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on October 1, 2019 at 2:58pm

Actually there is someone doing something but it all falls to funding. I'm developing a new mode of transportation that will cut CO2 production substantially (enough to meet that 10 year goal).

There is also a new material that captures energy from the temperature changes as day flips into night and v.v.. When added to solar panels, it will result in 24/7 energy production. And there are efforts to capture UV wavelengths in addition to visible light.

Oddly enough, these ideas are not being adopted by the carbon alarmists. So the funding stream is very challenging for new options.