Solar and wind save the day in New England!

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
They produced a huge amount of electricity......a combined almost 4% of the grid electricity!

Yep just under 4% was from wind and solar. The biggest growth was ......fuel oil with 17% of electricity or more than four times wind and solar.

They consistently refuse to upgrade nat gas pipelines or build new ones. So now they are burning fuel oil, far dirtier than nat gas. The also import LNG from Russia which is produced with almost no environmental regulations destroying permafrost. And it is financing Putin as he preps for war in Ukraine.

 
Last edited:

TFBaum

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2020
1,836
1,914
1
I would spend leaves in Holland, one of my favorite countries in the world. They tried windmills, they make really nice building of a time gone bye
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

royboy

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2001
46,402
31,221
1
Lewisville, NC
I would spend leaves in Holland, one of my favorite countries in the world. They tried windmills, they make really nice building of a time gone bye
Yeah, renewables are not living up to the hype in Europe.

But France, of all places, has done a good job on clean energy.

Screen-Shot-2022-01-24-at-1.03.02-PM.png
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
Yeah, renewables are not living up to the hype in Europe.

But France, of all places, has done a good job on clean energy.

Screen-Shot-2022-01-24-at-1.03.02-PM.png
The French have excelled at energy production. They went all in on nuclear decades ago. One interesting thing about French reactors is that they recycle the spent fuel rods into new rods so they have much less nuclear waste.
 

Fayette_LION

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 28, 2004
10,416
7,167
1
They produced a huge amount of electricity......a combined almost 4% of the grid electricity!

Yep just under 4% was from wind and solar. The biggest growth was ......fuel oil with 17% of electricity or more than four times wind and solar.

They consistently refuse to upgrade nat gas pipelines or build new ones. So now they are burning fuel oil, far dirtier than nat gas. The also import LNG from Russia which is produced with almost no environmental regulations destroying permafrost. And it is financing Putin as he preps for war in Ukraine.

Drove by a solar farm here in SW Pa along RT 70 last week. The panels were all covered with snow. I thought about what the efficiency is while covered in snow. Has to be very low.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,328
8,111
1
We are seeing the damage caused by political entrenchment as never before. Our country might not recover, as the people that will not budge from the destruction will be in power through 2024.

We should be fracking as much as possible until nuclear plants are completed to replace the NG. If a better, safer form of nuclear gets developed along the way then that is just gravy.

But what we're doing right now is so stupid, or so corrupt (as to bring the country down), that it lacks comprehension. Is this all just a brain-dead attempt to "reverse anything Trump?" I'm beginning to think it isn't. They're just using Trump's name as an excuse for a communist-style takeover.

Impoverish the people and make them dependent. That's the game-plan.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,682
58,063
1
Yeah, renewables are not living up to the hype in Europe.

But France, of all places, has done a good job on clean energy.

Screen-Shot-2022-01-24-at-1.03.02-PM.png

Interesting find there Roy. Didn't know France was so keen on Nuclear. It's pretty darn clear from those stats that nuclear reduces carbon, and has the scale to keep the French warm in winter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,328
8,111
1
Interesting find there Roy. Didn't know France was so keen on Nuclear. It's pretty darn clear from those stats that nuclear reduces carbon, and has the scale to keep the French warm in winter.

I have been saying, now for 45 years, that nuclear power and EVs were the only practical long term solution for heating/AC and transportation. Always felt that burning hydrocarbons, instead of using them for chemicals, lubricants, and other products, was a horrible waste of natural resources.

At the time I did not see hydrogen in the picture for transportation, but if there is a way to safely store and release H2, that would be far better than reliance on the mining and minerals needed for batteries.

Like just about everything in our society now, the people with reasonable solutions are not heard. In this case you are either for burning gasoline, believing it has no cost to the environment, or you are for windmills powering EVs. It is sad that neither side can see a better solution.
 

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
16,040
5,486
1
They produced a huge amount of electricity......a combined almost 4% of the grid electricity!

Yep just under 4% was from wind and solar. The biggest growth was ......fuel oil with 17% of electricity or more than four times wind and solar.

They consistently refuse to upgrade nat gas pipelines or build new ones. So now they are burning fuel oil, far dirtier than nat gas. The also import LNG from Russia which is produced with almost no environmental regulations destroying permafrost. And it is financing Putin as he preps for war in Ukraine.

Leftist sacraments/ideology much more important than common sense.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
They produced a huge amount of electricity......a combined almost 4% of the grid electricity!

Yep just under 4% was from wind and solar. The biggest growth was ......fuel oil with 17% of electricity or more than four times wind and solar.

They consistently refuse to upgrade nat gas pipelines or build new ones. So now they are burning fuel oil, far dirtier than nat gas. The also import LNG from Russia which is produced with almost no environmental regulations destroying permafrost. And it is financing Putin as he preps for war in Ukraine.


Most NG pipe lines through New England have failed because their terminal point and most of their targeted supply has been Long Island. The route from most pipelines to LI has been across the LI Sound (mid-sound) which has received stiff opposition.

Based on a clip of the article it's not that NE has a lack of NG causing oil to be burned, it that oil is the cheaper option at the moment.

ISO New England, the region’s grid operator, utilized oil capacity to provide for 17 percent of the region’s electricity needs as temperatures dropped well below freezing. Because of high natural gas prices, and scant availability of the region’s renewable capacity, the most economical move for the region was to bring oil and coal fired capacity online to power the grid.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,402
11,024
1
Most NG pipe lines through New England have failed because their terminal point and most of their targeted supply has been Long Island. The route from most pipelines to LI has been across the LI Sound (mid-sound) which has received stiff opposition.

Based on a clip of the article it's not that NE has a lack of NG causing oil to be burned, it that oil is the cheaper option at the moment.

ISO New England, the region’s grid operator, utilized oil capacity to provide for 17 percent of the region’s electricity needs as temperatures dropped well below freezing. Because of high natural gas prices, and scant availability of the region’s renewable capacity, the most economical move for the region was to bring oil and coal fired capacity online to power the grid.

But, but, the planet! Shouldn't liberal New England pony up beaucoup dollars for more expensive energy for the children? How dare they!?
 

Steve G

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,124
1,376
1
The French have excelled at energy production. They went all in on nuclear decades ago. One interesting thing about French reactors is that they recycle the spent fuel rods into new rods so they have much less nuclear waste.
The French approach to nuclear was driven by central government, nationalized (socialized) approach than in the US, which pursued a "market driven" approach. The French settled on a single reactor design and standardized all their processes across the entire life cycle of the reactor and fuel to have a coherent, unitary system. The US did not follow that path, with multiple competing designs and approaches and did not develop a "complete" ecosystem as did the French. So maybe there is something beneficial to socialists, central design approaches to public policy issues like energy.......
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
But, but, the planet! Shouldn't liberal New England pony up beaucoup dollars for more expensive energy for the children? How dare they!?
I'd say most of NE's energy comes from NG turbine facilities, nuclear, or hydro imported from Canada. Coal has been phased out for awhile due to air quality concerns. Here in CT we had the dirty dozen which were coal/oil fired powerplant that contributed to poor air quality. Coal plants are gone. Some of the oil fired one are still around more for standby power than anything else. Most of the NG fired gas turbine are duel fuel with oil being the alternate. Typically you don't want to use oil especially if you as a steam generator attached to the turbine exit to extract energy out of the 1000F turbine exit exhaust gases. It tends to foul up your heat transfer surfaces decreasing their efficiency going forward.

There is some wind power in NE. A fair number in RI, most which don't seem to turn much when I'm in the state. Not a whole lot of utility size solar but a fair number of residential roof top installation. They are always trying to hawk those at Home Depot and the like.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
The French approach to nuclear was driven by central government, nationalized (socialized) approach than in the US, which pursued a "market driven" approach. The French settled on a single reactor design and standardized all their processes across the entire life cycle of the reactor and fuel to have a coherent, unitary system. The US did not follow that path, with multiple competing designs and approaches and did not develop a "complete" ecosystem as did the French. So maybe there is something beneficial to socialists, central design approaches to public policy issues like energy.......

I guess you can get away with that when your country is about 80% of the size of Texas with 17M more people than Texas . . . . . .
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,328
8,111
1
The French approach to nuclear was driven by central government, nationalized (socialized) approach than in the US, which pursued a "market driven" approach. The French settled on a single reactor design and standardized all their processes across the entire life cycle of the reactor and fuel to have a coherent, unitary system. The US did not follow that path, with multiple competing designs and approaches and did not develop a "complete" ecosystem as did the French. So maybe there is something beneficial to socialists, central design approaches to public policy issues like energy.......

Uh no. Private industry will always follow the best approach. It does not need to be "public policy" beyond environmental and safety standards. The French do not have a natural gas reserve beneath their soil.

If there is concern for global "climate change," then "public policy" could give the nuclear industry the same types of incentives that it gives other "green" forms of energy. Why doesn't it? I would say that our "leaders" are beholden to China, who stands to win big selling solar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSPMax and Ski

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,616
9,803
1
We are seeing the damage caused by political entrenchment as never before. Our country might not recover, as the people that will not budge from the destruction will be in power through 2024.

We should be fracking as much as possible until nuclear plants are completed to replace the NG. If a better, safer form of nuclear gets developed along the way then that is just gravy.

But what we're doing right now is so stupid, or so corrupt (as to bring the country down), that it lacks comprehension. Is this all just a brain-dead attempt to "reverse anything Trump?" I'm beginning to think it isn't. They're just using Trump's name as an excuse for a communist-style takeover.

Impoverish the people and make them dependent. That's the game-plan.

I came around to the view a while back, Knight, that the wreckage is not a bug...it's a feature. In fact, it's the main feature of their program.

These people hate the "old" America, hate her history, hate her traditions, hate her values, and hate a large portion of her citizenry. Therefore, they wish to wreck all that and replace it with basically a different country, which I call Brave New Amerika, made in their own image.

Once you understand this, all the weirdness makes sense -- their insistence on policies that not only don't work but demonstrably make things worse...and may even be politically disastrous for them. That's why they're desperate to rig the election system while instituting rule by unelected bureaucrats, regulators, judges, and oligarchs. Because then the politics don't matter anymore.

The same dynamic is in play in the Catholic Church where an entire generation of corrupt leaders are doing things not only contrary to the faith and traditions of the Church but also seemingly harmful to their own interest as people abandon the institution, churches are closed, revenues reduced, and so forth.

It makes no sense on any logical level until you come to the grim understanding that the damage they're inflicting is not a bug...it's a feature. Therefore, you can't reach them with warnings about the obvious and increasing harm...because that's the whole point.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,682
58,063
1
The French approach to nuclear was driven by central government, nationalized (socialized) approach than in the US, which pursued a "market driven" approach. The French settled on a single reactor design and standardized all their processes across the entire life cycle of the reactor and fuel to have a coherent, unitary system. The US did not follow that path, with multiple competing designs and approaches and did not develop a "complete" ecosystem as did the French. So maybe there is something beneficial to socialists, central design approaches to public policy issues like energy.......

You are comical. The socialized approach in the USA doesn't want the private sector building nuclear power plants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe and Ski

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
The French approach to nuclear was driven by central government, nationalized (socialized) approach than in the US, which pursued a "market driven" approach. The French settled on a single reactor design and standardized all their processes across the entire life cycle of the reactor and fuel to have a coherent, unitary system. The US did not follow that path, with multiple competing designs and approaches and did not develop a "complete" ecosystem as did the French. So maybe there is something beneficial to socialists, central design approaches to public policy issues like energy.......
First, as Knightwhosaysnitt pointed out, the French have no nat gas fields to tap. They had the choice of paying for expensive and unreliable foreign energy or developing their own system which almost had to be nuclear by default.

And once they started building.....they built. In the US there were huge amounts of lawsuits involved that led to long delays, major redesigns, and huge cost over runs. This pretty much killed the industry which was the intended outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,682
58,063
1
Uh no. Private industry will always follow the best approach. It does not need to be "public policy" beyond environmental and safety standards. The French do not have a natural gas reserve beneath their soil.

If there is concern for global "climate change," then "public policy" could give the nuclear industry the same types of incentives that it gives other "green" forms of energy. Why doesn't it? I would say that our "leaders" are beholden to China, who stands to win big selling solar.

Steve thinks the government here in America doesn't have regulations for nuclear power generation.

Maybe this will help him??

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/index.html
 

horace19040

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2021
509
476
1
They produced a huge amount of electricity......a combined almost 4% of the grid electricity!

Yep just under 4% was from wind and solar. The biggest growth was ......fuel oil with 17% of electricity or more than four times wind and solar.

They consistently refuse to upgrade nat gas pipelines or build new ones. So now they are burning fuel oil, far dirtier than nat gas. The also import LNG from Russia which is produced with almost no environmental regulations destroying permafrost. And it is financing Putin as he preps for war in Ukraine.



Liberals destroyed the walkable inner cities and pushed the masses to the suburbs where they need cars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnightWhoSaysNit

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
Most NG pipe lines through New England have failed because their terminal point and most of their targeted supply has been Long Island. The route from most pipelines to LI has been across the LI Sound (mid-sound) which has received stiff opposition.

Based on a clip of the article it's not that NE has a lack of NG causing oil to be burned, it that oil is the cheaper option at the moment.

ISO New England, the region’s grid operator, utilized oil capacity to provide for 17 percent of the region’s electricity needs as temperatures dropped well below freezing. Because of high natural gas prices, and scant availability of the region’s renewable capacity, the most economical move for the region was to bring oil and coal fired capacity online to power the grid.
Nat gas prices are high in NE because of supply constraints. There have been several pipelines proposed to feed NE but they are always stopped by the keep on the ground gang. NY, NJ, and other states refuse new pipelines. Nat gas is often fives times more expensive there. There was also a huge power line proposed to come down from Canada that was denied permits.

From the EIA nat gas weekly......

New England natural gas prices increase due to supply constraints and high demand

Spot natural gas prices at the Algonquin Citygate—a widely referenced trading hub and benchmark for natural gas prices in New England—have exceeded $20/MMBtu (million British thermal units) more than 10 times so far this winter. Last week the region experienced a cold snap, when well-below-normal temperatures led to an increase in consumption of natural gas (used primarily for space heating and for electric power generation) to 4.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d)—the highest level since January 2021. New England prices are likely to remain volatile this winter in response to extreme cold weather events as natural gas pipeline supply remains constrained and the region has to compete for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the high-priced tight global spot market.

Spot natural gas prices in New England are generally more volatile during winter months, when cold weather leads to higher regional natural gas demand and congestion on regional natural gas pipelines. Historically, LNG imports have been the key marginal source of supply during times of peak demand because New England does not have underground natural gas storage and is not a natural gas-producing region. LNG imports have moderated spot prices in New England and limited price spikes in the past three winters. Peak winter (December through February) spot prices at Algonquin Citygate averaged $5.69/MMBtu in 2018–2019, $3.27/MMBtu in 2019–20, and $5.68/MMBtu in 2020–21, with daily prices not exceeding $14.00/MMBtu in any of the three winters.

LNG is imported into New England via the Everett LNG onshore terminal (0.7 Bcf/d capacity) located near Boston, Massachusetts; the Northeast Gateway (0.5 Bcf/d capacity), an offshore terminal near Boston, Massachusetts; and the Saint John (formerly called Canaport) LNG onshore terminal (1.0 Bcf/d capacity) in New Brunswick, Canada. Saint John LNG imports are transported to New England via the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,328
8,111
1
I sometimes watch the Bloomberg channel for market commentary. That and Fox Business. This gives me both Left and Right perspectives.

Bloomberg is running something on their ticker today that says this "Nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change," [wrote] the former heads of nuclear regulatory agencies in the U.S., Germany, and France, and the former secretary of the U.K.'s radiation protection committee, in an open letter [today].

There you have it. These are the people that have the solution -- Chinese solar panels, and windmills as far as the eye can see.

[For those that have never worked in industry, be advised that there is ALWAYS a tradeoff between safety (risk) and cost. Investing in China and building windmills everywhere are not solutions without risk.]
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
Please elaborate on the relevance of this "factoid" to Steve G's point?
Ok, slow Ned. France isn't the US. Much smaller country, much higher population density. Totally different political/economic landscape. Not to mention average electrical rate are 50% higher than the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
Nat gas prices are high in NE because of supply constraints. There have been several pipelines proposed to feed NE but they are always stopped by the keep on the ground gang. NY, NJ, and other states refuse new pipelines. Nat gas is often fives times more expensive there. There was also a huge power line proposed to come down from Canada that was denied permits.

From the EIA nat gas weekly......

New England natural gas prices increase due to supply constraints and high demand

Spot natural gas prices at the Algonquin Citygate—a widely referenced trading hub and benchmark for natural gas prices in New England—have exceeded $20/MMBtu (million British thermal units) more than 10 times so far this winter. Last week the region experienced a cold snap, when well-below-normal temperatures led to an increase in consumption of natural gas (used primarily for space heating and for electric power generation) to 4.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d)—the highest level since January 2021. New England prices are likely to remain volatile this winter in response to extreme cold weather events as natural gas pipeline supply remains constrained and the region has to compete for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the high-priced tight global spot market.

Spot natural gas prices in New England are generally more volatile during winter months, when cold weather leads to higher regional natural gas demand and congestion on regional natural gas pipelines. Historically, LNG imports have been the key marginal source of supply during times of peak demand because New England does not have underground natural gas storage and is not a natural gas-producing region. LNG imports have moderated spot prices in New England and limited price spikes in the past three winters. Peak winter (December through February) spot prices at Algonquin Citygate averaged $5.69/MMBtu in 2018–2019, $3.27/MMBtu in 2019–20, and $5.68/MMBtu in 2020–21, with daily prices not exceeding $14.00/MMBtu in any of the three winters.

LNG is imported into New England via the Everett LNG onshore terminal (0.7 Bcf/d capacity) located near Boston, Massachusetts; the Northeast Gateway (0.5 Bcf/d capacity), an offshore terminal near Boston, Massachusetts; and the Saint John (formerly called Canaport) LNG onshore terminal (1.0 Bcf/d capacity) in New Brunswick, Canada. Saint John LNG imports are transported to New England via the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline.

What they don't tell you that LNG that comes into the Boston Harbor stays in the Boston metro. That pipeline from Canada was really target for LI and they couldn't get a permit to run it at the bottom of the LI Sound the project died. Sure we would have some benefit from that pipeline but most of the NE was not it's target. is NG more expensive in NE than say NW PA where my parents live, hell ya but you should see our electric rates. People who can't get a NG gas line to their house, many heat with significantly more expensive propane which is still cheaper than heating with oil or electricity. If you really want to pay some outrageous electrical rates live in the areas down on the shoreline that buy it's electricity from the Millstone Nuke plants. They build 4 units, two are being decomissioned, two active. the base rate is higher than what I pay then they add a surcharge for their decommissioning efforts and they still have spent rods in cooling ponds with no where to take them.
 

Steve G

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,124
1,376
1
Uh no. Private industry will always follow the best approach. It does not need to be "public policy" beyond environmental and safety standards. The French do not have a natural gas reserve beneath their soil.

If there is concern for global "climate change," then "public policy" could give the nuclear industry the same types of incentives that it gives other "green" forms of energy. Why doesn't it? I would say that our "leaders" are beholden to China, who stands to win big selling solar.
Électricité de France (EDF) – the country's main electricity generation and distribution company – manages the country's nuclear power plants.[44] EDF is substantially owned by the French government, with around 85% of EDF shares in government hands.[4]

The PWR plants were all developed by Framatome (now Areva) from the initial Westinghouse design.[63][64][65] All currently operating PWR plants are of three design variations, having output powers of 900 MWe, 1300 MWe, and 1450 MWe. The repeated use of these standard variants of a design has afforded France the greatest degree of nuclear plant standardization in the world.

France is one of the few countries in the world with an active nuclear reprocessing program, with the COGEMA La Hague site. Enrichment work, some MOX fuel fabrication, and other activities take place at the Tricastin Nuclear Power Centre. Enrichment is completely domestic and is powered by 2/3 of the output of the nuclear plant at Tricastin. Reprocessing of fuel from other countries has been done for the United States and Japan, who have expressed the desire to develop a more closed fuel cycle similar to what France has achieved. MOX fuel fabrication services have also been sold to other countries, notably to the USA for the Megatons to Megawatts Program, using plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons.
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,006
2,945
1
The French approach to nuclear was driven by central government, nationalized (socialized) approach than in the US, which pursued a "market driven" approach. The French settled on a single reactor design and standardized all their processes across the entire life cycle of the reactor and fuel to have a coherent, unitary system. The US did not follow that path, with multiple competing designs and approaches and did not develop a "complete" ecosystem as did the French. So maybe there is something beneficial to socialists, central design approaches to public policy issues like energy.......
I wish our US socialist politicians would consider France’s nuclear ☢️ energy policies. It doesn’t seem to be a topic of interest.
 

horace19040

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2021
509
476
1
Household electricity prices worldwide in December 2020, by select country

Cost per KwH
France - $0.22
US - $0.15
It costs France 31.8% more per KwH

List of countries by electricity consumption

We consume way more energy per capita.
France - 6774 KwH per capita
US - 12,154 KwH per capita

Go **** yourself OLD MAN.


You can thank liberals who destroyed the energy efficient walkable cities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HartfordLlion

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
Électricité de France (EDF) – the country's main electricity generation and distribution company – manages the country's nuclear power plants.[44] EDF is substantially owned by the French government, with around 85% of EDF shares in government hands.[4]

The PWR plants were all developed by Framatome (now Areva) from the initial Westinghouse design.[63][64][65] All currently operating PWR plants are of three design variations, having output powers of 900 MWe, 1300 MWe, and 1450 MWe. The repeated use of these standard variants of a design has afforded France the greatest degree of nuclear plant standardization in the world.

France is one of the few countries in the world with an active nuclear reprocessing program, with the COGEMA La Hague site. Enrichment work, some MOX fuel fabrication, and other activities take place at the Tricastin Nuclear Power Centre. Enrichment is completely domestic and is powered by 2/3 of the output of the nuclear plant at Tricastin. Reprocessing of fuel from other countries has been done for the United States and Japan, who have expressed the desire to develop a more closed fuel cycle similar to what France has achieved. MOX fuel fabrication services have also been sold to other countries, notably to the USA for the Megatons to Megawatts Program, using plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons.
So they took the design from GE.......a private company. Then they used the same three designs. Couldn’t do that in the states because every single unit was sued over and over. They were forced to make massive design changes while under construction which added huge costs and delays.

When did the French build theirs? Was it years after the US? When the US started it was cutting edge technology that required adaptions as they learned. If the French built theirs ten or more years later they benefited bigly from the US learning curve. Plus being a socialist country they had more power to build with far less legal problems. And they could get disaster insurance easier.....if they even did since it was government.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
Household electricity prices worldwide in December 2020, by select country

Cost per KwH
France - $0.22
US - $0.15
It costs France 31.8% more per KwH

List of countries by electricity consumption

We consume way more energy per capita.
France - 6774 KwH per capita
US - 12,154 KwH per capita

Go **** yourself OLD MAN.
Those kilowatt prices.....are those just the kilowatt cost or is that the price after all other charges like transmission fees, taxes, and a host of other things we get charged for?
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
What they don't tell you that LNG that comes into the Boston Harbor stays in the Boston metro. That pipeline from Canada was really target for LI and they couldn't get a permit to run it at the bottom of the LI Sound the project died. Sure we would have some benefit from that pipeline but most of the NE was not it's target. is NG more expensive in NE than say NW PA where my parents live, hell ya but you should see our electric rates. People who can't get a NG gas line to their house, many heat with significantly more expensive propane which is still cheaper than heating with oil or electricity. If you really want to pay some outrageous electrical rates live in the areas down on the shoreline that buy it's electricity from the Millstone Nuke plants. They build 4 units, two are being decomissioned, two active. the base rate is higher than what I pay then they add a surcharge for their decommissioning efforts and they still have spent rods in cooling ponds with no where to take them.
I was referencing a massive $10 billion electric power line that got canned by people in Maine refusing a ROW through the state. It was to bring hydro power from Canada to Massachusetts. Sorry, should have been more clear on that. The greenies fight everything every where and believe Pocahontas and Bernie when they claim power companies are price gouging.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,298
10,973
1
SE PA
They produced a huge amount of electricity......a combined almost 4% of the grid electricity!

Yep just under 4% was from wind and solar. The biggest growth was ......fuel oil with 17% of electricity or more than four times wind and solar.

They consistently refuse to upgrade nat gas pipelines or build new ones. So now they are burning fuel oil, far dirtier than nat gas. The also import LNG from Russia which is produced with almost no environmental regulations destroying permafrost. And it is financing Putin as he preps for war in Ukraine.

Only in a liberal's mind does this make sense.
 

Steve G

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,124
1,376
1
So they took the design from GE.......a private company. Then they used the same three designs. Couldn’t do that in the states because every single unit was sued over and over. They were forced to make massive design changes while under construction which added huge costs and delays.

When did the French build theirs? Was it years after the US? When the US started it was cutting edge technology that required adaptions as they learned. If the French built theirs ten or more years later they benefited bigly from the US learning curve. Plus being a socialist country they had more power to build with far less legal problems. And they could get disaster insurance easier.....if they even did since it was government.
the point is the French through a centralized, socialized process, driven by the federal government developed a functional nuclear energy production system that provides most of their electricity. The United States did not. We could have, we still could, but would take national resolve and national agreement. That the US does not lead the world in nuclear technology (and the French do!! The French for crying out loud, the French surrender monkeys) and that we do not have a coherent, functional national energy strategy is really shameful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
the point is the French through a centralized, socialized process, driven by the federal government developed a functional nuclear energy production system that provides most of their electricity. The United States did not. We could have, we still could, but would take national resolve and national agreement. That the US does not lead the world in nuclear technology (and the French do!! The French for crying out loud, the French surrender monkeys) and that we do not have a coherent, functional national energy strategy is really shameful.
Well then, place the blame where it lies. The greenies have been fighting nuclear 4 EVER! They drove up costs, prevented government subsidiaries and instead put up government roadblocks. Wouldn’t even allow government aid in reinsurance.

If they had supported nuclear with the same massive subsidies solar and wind have had for twenty years we have a substantial nuclear powered grid, lower emissions not only of CO2 but much more, and probably far cheaper energy. And if nuclear powered our grid, nat gas would be cheaper for other uses like heat, fertilizer, and industrial uses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
Household electricity prices worldwide in December 2020, by select country

Cost per KwH
France - $0.22
US - $0.15
It costs France 31.8% more per KwH

List of countries by electricity consumption

We consume way more energy per capita.
France - 6774 KwH per capita
US - 12,154 KwH per capita

Go **** yourself OLD MAN.

We consume more per capita because we can. Sign of a rich nation. Ever been to France, smaller houses, smaller cars, people stack together if you are not out in the country. They drive far less. Give me good old America and my 5L F150 with the 36 gallon fuel tank.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
So they took the design from GE.......a private company. Then they used the same three designs. Couldn’t do that in the states because every single unit was sued over and over. They were forced to make massive design changes while under construction which added huge costs and delays.

When did the French build theirs? Was it years after the US? When the US started it was cutting edge technology that required adaptions as they learned. If the French built theirs ten or more years later they benefited bigly from the US learning curve. Plus being a socialist country they had more power to build with far less legal problems. And they could get disaster insurance easier.....if they even did since it was government.

And the French are not designing to significant earthquakes or hurricanes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
We consume more per capita because we can. Sign of a rich nation. Ever been to France, smaller houses, smaller cars, people stack together if you are not out in the country. They drive far less. Give me good old America and my 5L F150 with the 36 gallon fuel tank.
That per capita includes all use divided by population. Since we have a large industrial base, all that industrial use pumps up average. Would like to see a comparison of per household. Even per household of similar size.

Comparisons are also complicated by climate. France has a fairly moderate climate requiring less energy per household. The US has wide range of climates with many areas demanding large heating costs while others have massive air conditioning costs. And that should include commercial and industrial uses.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
Électricité de France (EDF) – the country's main electricity generation and distribution company – manages the country's nuclear power plants.[44] EDF is substantially owned by the French government, with around 85% of EDF shares in government hands.[4]

The PWR plants were all developed by Framatome (now Areva) from the initial Westinghouse design.[63][64][65] All currently operating PWR plants are of three design variations, having output powers of 900 MWe, 1300 MWe, and 1450 MWe. The repeated use of these standard variants of a design has afforded France the greatest degree of nuclear plant standardization in the world.

France is one of the few countries in the world with an active nuclear reprocessing program, with the COGEMA La Hague site. Enrichment work, some MOX fuel fabrication, and other activities take place at the Tricastin Nuclear Power Centre. Enrichment is completely domestic and is powered by 2/3 of the output of the nuclear plant at Tricastin. Reprocessing of fuel from other countries has been done for the United States and Japan, who have expressed the desire to develop a more closed fuel cycle similar to what France has achieved. MOX fuel fabrication services have also been sold to other countries, notably to the USA for the Megatons to Megawatts Program, using plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons.

We don't run plutonium in commercial US nuclear reactors. No one has gotten that past the NRC on the commercial side. Savanna River is fast breeder nuke plant for research and to prove out the design but it have never gone anywhere on the commercial side.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,558
26,845
1
An altered state
We don't run plutonium in commercial US nuclear reactors. No one has gotten that past the NRC on the commercial side. Savanna River is fast breeder nuke plant for research and to prove out the design but it have never gone anywhere on the commercial side.
He misspoke. That program took highly enriched Ur and diluted it down to nuclear fuel,standards. Wasn’t plutonium.