Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chair_caner t1_ix0xxd7 wrote

Exactly. Follow the money. But it's simpler than you think.

Power costs a certain amount per megawatt, depending on the source. Until recently, natural gas has been the cheapest source. The grid (ISONE) bids for the lowest cost to generate electricity in the day-ahead and real-time market. If it costs more to make the electricity than you earn, plants will not deliver to the grid. When demand, and therefore prices, rise, different fuels turn on to meet the demand. They won't run just because they feel like it. They need to cover their costs. Thank deregulation for that maneuver.

That's what killed coal and half of our nukes. Cheap gas. Also keep in mind that I can burn gas at my house at 80% or 95% efficiency (stove/furnace or condensing gas boiler). A power plant using gas is best case 50% efficient. So tell me how the pipeline wasn't a better environmental option.

Going green: Solar and wind rely on batteries to feed consistently to the grid. There are "virtual power plants" that use the solar batteries in your homes to deliver a controllable amount of power back to the grid, coordinated between the battery supplier (Tesla, etc) and ISO. It's a combination of residential and commercial projects that contribute. So do your part and get panels for your house.

3

psu1989 t1_ix1axtz wrote

Not sure I follow. If the price of nat gas is up and expected to go up, then why not turn the knob up on nuclear?

2

6byfour t1_ix20evz wrote

That nob takes 20 years to turn

2

psu1989 t1_ix283lb wrote

I see Millstone nuke plant runs at about 70% capacity.

1