We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
All these efforts to line up alternative sources to replace the plant, while making no effort to keep the plant open. Keeping the plant open would have required less money.
For example, I hear that the plan for sending Canadian hydro electricity to New England is based on giving them above-market electricity prices. A similar policy would have kept Pilgrim open, the only difference being that the amount of support Pilgrim would have needed would have been smaller, and temporary.
The bias against nuclear be the region's policymakers is clear. This is very unfortunate. Any new supplies from renewables should be used to replace fossil fuels, not nuclear.
"No it won't the plant shuts down for 40 days every 18 months and no one notices"
For those interested in facts, not misinformation, Pilgrim plant goes 24 months between refuelings (which are intentionally scheduled for mild, low-demand months), and they usually take about 23 days: roadtechs(dot)com/nukeout.htm
Watch "Frank" change the subject, repeatedly, when his assertions are shown to be wrong.
For those interested in facts, not misinformation, Pilgrim plant goes 24 months between refuelings (which are intentionally scheduled for mild, low-demand months), and they usually take about 23 days: https://www.roadtechs.com/n...
The state of Massachusetts could put 775 MW of dispatchable, reliable, carbon-free electricity production on the Pilgrim site (while earning Federal CPP credits) by building three new Westinghouse Small Modular Reactors there:http://www.westinghousenucl...
The Quebec hydropower is ultra-cheap now and they're selling it all over New England. It's silly to buy anything else while it's available. However, it's still worth it to put up solar and wind since Quebec hydro can't quite supply *all* power. It's weirdly dishonest to list this plant as 10% of *generation* in New England rather than listing it as a percentage of *consumption*, since New England imports huge amounts of hydropower.
No it won't the plant shuts down for 40 days every 18 months and no one notices.
Those planned outages are scheduled at times of minimum demand (spring and fall).
Unlike renewables, that don't generate power ~2/3 of the time, and where you don't get to choose the times when they're "off-line". Tragically, wind tends to generate power when we don't need it.
Ya but those unplanned scrams come at any time, and require instantaneous 100% backup.....and if the grid drops out because of it....and the gensets don't start....then we are into meltdown mode. Again.
So 100% backup required, and instantaneous
and how often do those scrams happen? Are they more or less common than say times of low wind?