Submitted by oceansofmyancestors t3_yopgpy in massachusetts
langjie t1_ivfk23o wrote
Reply to comment by Mnemon-TORreport in Why is National Grid increasing rates by 64% by oceansofmyancestors
ISO-NE says 53% of our electricity comes from nat gas
I'm for more nuclear
NoMoLerking t1_ivfsryd wrote
It’s pretty obvious we need some kind of stable, low-carbon energy source for the 40-50% of capacity that’s just always on. And I’m talking for the whole country, not just here. Nuclear is the only option. Sorry but it just is. The sooner we come to grips with that fact the better.
PtrWalnuts t1_ivhbcny wrote
It's not the only option but we should certainly start looking at it again.
g_rich t1_ivics77 wrote
The problem with nuclear is that it takes decades and billions to build a nuclear power plant and there is a lot of risk because even with that investment there is the real chance that you could end up with a power plant that never goes online.
Most people agree that nuclear would solve a lot of our energy problems but there is a lot of not in my backyard for both the power plants and the wast which just compounds the problems I described above. The reality is unless there is a fundamental change in the way we build and operate nuclear power plants that both makes them safer and significantly less expensive to build then we are unlikely to see any new plants come online any time soon. We would be better off investing that time and money into wind, and solar along with grid level energy storage.
Expendable95 t1_ivjacyd wrote
The best system that’s been proposed is many smaller (and less expensive) nuclear power plants with some online constantly and others that can spool up in a few days (not over a week like big plants) to meet demand, say before a heat wave or cold spell.
Mnemon-TORreport t1_ivfuwj9 wrote
I pulled that 35% from the last energy label Eversource distributed showing the fuel mix and other info for the supply they're providing their customers.
Either way, the number one source of our electricity in New England is natural gas, which puts more pressure on gas supply in the region and pushes pricing up even more than just winter heating.
Sadly nuclear is just under 4% of the mix. I believe at one point it was between 15 and 20% of electricity generation in New England, but now only Seabrook (NH) and Millstone (CT) are operational.
There used to be several. Pilgrim in MA. Then the three Yankee plants in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.
BeerJunky t1_ivhkr1j wrote
Renewables are getting cheaper than nuclear and won’t get the NIMBY push back. States should keep on incentivizing solar, wind and hydro.
modernhomeowner t1_ivhtdcy wrote
Renewable themselves are cheap when they are funtional (sun shining, wind blowing). Storage is expensive to build, and can have losses of 40%, making renewables cost more than stable sources like natural gas or nuclear.
BeerJunky t1_ivi3uo0 wrote
Ocean currents and rivers don’t stop.
modernhomeowner t1_ivi4fh5 wrote
Funny you mention it, because i had put that in my post, then deleted it. From what I have seen, we have tapped out our hydro capability in MA.
BeerJunky t1_ivi4vav wrote
Rivers maybe, offshore will be king.
PaulitoTuGato t1_ivgzmkc wrote
Me too! It seems like the most reliable cleanest source of power imo. We should be using the keystone pipeline to invest in nuclear plants
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments