Shutting down fossil fuel electric plants

[brewer]

Ain't gonna happen until we have a replacement power source. My guess is that we'll need to step up the nuclear dance.

[Anomalocaris]

Ain't gonna happen until we have a replacement power source. My guess is that we'll need to step up the nuclear dance.

Fossil fuel power plants fulfill a vital need of the electrical power grid, that is for the ability to rapidly adjust power output on command in response to changes in load on the electric grid.  This is necessary for maintaining voltage and frequency stability of the lectric power grid.    If voltage and frequency stability are not maintained, bad things will happen to many heavy duty electrical equipment in commercial and industrial applications.

Nuclear does not address this need.  Nuclear power tend to be very stable and uneconomic to vary in output once the station is on-line.  So they have very limited ability to vary their output on command to compensate for rapid changes in system load.   At the moment nuclear is also far from price competitive purely from all-in cost of energy perspective.  

Existing or perspective renewable generation technologies do not address this need either.   In fact they make the need much greater because output from renewable technologies tend to fluncturate uncontrollably at the whim of wind and weather, thus increasing the need of the power grid for other resources to rapidly change in output on command to compensate.

Hydro-electric and pumped storage power plants can at times address some of this need, but they are subject to limited availability and other constraints.

At the moment, To completely replace fossil fuel fired power plants while still maintaining power grid stability requires sizeable breakthrough in other energy storage technologies.

[Rahn127]

I'm envisioning many other countries gathering together and targeting the worst offenders (China, US, European Union, India)

Militarily, Russia would be the only one that could realistically put all of those countries in check, but it would probably mean nuclear war and on that front, we all lose anyway you look at it.

Russia exports massive amount of fossil fuels and refined energy.  The notion that they're going to bomb their markets out of existence is ludicrous.

The countries that get their largest share of energy from non-fossil fuels tend to be little ones (Sweden, Denmark, Scotland, etc).  I don't really see Costa Rica fire-bombing the EU.

Boru

Very very true

---

If possible, I feel like I need to start moving to a place that is more self sustained and transportation needs are met without burning fossil fuels.

I envision a small house running on solar & small wind generator. Enough land to plant a small garden. A greenhouse for winter plants. Bicycle where I need to go.

Or move to a place near hydro electric dam, wind & solar and hope for the best.

The problem is going to be getting my extended family near the same place. For one, they may have other ideas about where they want to live.

It may even come down to the idea of "fuck the future. I'm going to ride this wave out right here and enjoy my life."

[CapnAwesome]

Last year more fossil fuels were burned than ever before. So I'd say no.

[Amarok]

Ain't gonna happen until we have a replacement power source. My guess is that we'll need to step up the nuclear dance.

Fossil fuel power plants fulfill a vital need of the electrical power grid, that is for the ability to rapidly adjust power output on command in response to changes in load on the electric grid.  This is necessary for maintaining voltage and frequency stability of the lectric power grid.    If voltage and frequency stability are not maintained, bad things will happen to many heavy duty electrical equipment in commercial and industrial applications.

Nuclear does not address this need.  Nuclear power tend to be very stable and uneconomic to vary in output once the station is on-line.  So they have very limited ability to vary their output on command to compensate for rapid changes in system load.   At the moment nuclear is also far from price competitive purely from all-in cost of energy perspective.  

Existing or perspective renewable generation technologies do not address this need either.   In fact they make the need much greater because output from renewable technologies tend to fluncturate uncontrollably at the whim of wind and weather, thus increasing the need of the power grid for other resources to rapidly change in output on command to compensate.

Hydro-electric and pumped storage power plants can at times address some of this need, but they are subject to limited availability and other constraints.

At the moment, To completely replace fossil fuel fired power plants while still maintaining power grid stability requires sizeable breakthrough in other energy storage technologies.

But were going to have to do it or suffer the consequences

[brewer]

Ain't gonna happen until we have a replacement power source. My guess is that we'll need to step up the nuclear dance.

Fossil fuel power plants fulfill a vital need of the electrical power grid, that is for the ability to rapidly adjust power output on command in response to changes in load on the electric grid.  This is necessary for maintaining voltage and frequency stability of the lectric power grid.    If voltage and frequency stability are not maintained, bad things will happen to many heavy duty electrical equipment in commercial and industrial applications.

Nuclear does not address this need.  Nuclear power tend to be very stable and uneconomic to vary in output once the station is on-line.  So they have very limited ability to vary their output on command to compensate for rapid changes in system load.   At the moment nuclear is also far from price competitive purely from all-in cost of energy perspective.  

Existing or perspective renewable generation technologies do not address this need either.   In fact they make the need much greater because output from renewable technologies tend to fluncturate uncontrollably at the whim of wind and weather, thus increasing the need of the power grid for other resources to rapidly change in output on command to compensate.

Hydro-electric and pumped storage power plants can at times address some of this need, but they are subject to limited availability and other constraints.

At the moment, To completely replace fossil fuel fired power plants while still maintaining power grid stability requires sizeable breakthrough in other energy storage technologies.

More nuclear generated electricity will need to be in the mix somewhere. Never said it was the total answer.

[Anomalocaris]

Fossil fuel power plants fulfill a vital need of the electrical power grid, that is for the ability to rapidly adjust power output on command in response to changes in load on the electric grid.  This is necessary for maintaining voltage and frequency stability of the lectric power grid.    If voltage and frequency stability are not maintained, bad things will happen to many heavy duty electrical equipment in commercial and industrial applications.

Nuclear does not address this need.  Nuclear power tend to be very stable and uneconomic to vary in output once the station is on-line.  So they have very limited ability to vary their output on command to compensate for rapid changes in system load.   At the moment nuclear is also far from price competitive purely from all-in cost of energy perspective.  

Existing or perspective renewable generation technologies do not address this need either.   In fact they make the need much greater because output from renewable technologies tend to fluncturate uncontrollably at the whim of wind and weather, thus increasing the need of the power grid for other resources to rapidly change in output on command to compensate.

Hydro-electric and pumped storage power plants can at times address some of this need, but they are subject to limited availability and other constraints.

At the moment, To completely replace fossil fuel fired power plants while still maintaining power grid stability requires sizeable breakthrough in other energy storage technologies.

But were going to have to do it or suffer the consequences

It’s not an all or nothing thing.

---

Fossil fuel power plants fulfill a vital need of the electrical power grid, that is for the ability to rapidly adjust power output on command in response to changes in load on the electric grid.  This is necessary for maintaining voltage and frequency stability of the lectric power grid.    If voltage and frequency stability are not maintained, bad things will happen to many heavy duty electrical equipment in commercial and industrial applications.

Nuclear does not address this need.  Nuclear power tend to be very stable and uneconomic to vary in output once the station is on-line.  So they have very limited ability to vary their output on command to compensate for rapid changes in system load.   At the moment nuclear is also far from price competitive purely from all-in cost of energy perspective.  

Existing or perspective renewable generation technologies do not address this need either.   In fact they make the need much greater because output from renewable technologies tend to fluncturate uncontrollably at the whim of wind and weather, thus increasing the need of the power grid for other resources to rapidly change in output on command to compensate.

Hydro-electric and pumped storage power plants can at times address some of this need, but they are subject to limited availability and other constraints.

At the moment, To completely replace fossil fuel fired power plants while still maintaining power grid stability requires sizeable breakthrough in other energy storage technologies.

More nuclear generated electricity will need to be in the mix somewhere. Never said it was the total answer.

The problem with nuclear is unless the capital cost is greatly reduced, it is not economic on all-in cost of energy basis. Particularly in the US. Right now Solar, wind and fossil are all cheaper than nuclear. This is discouraging the sort of investment needed to provide good prospect of improvement. Trump restricting nuclear exports to China is not helping with nuclear power research in the US.

[brewer]

---

More nuclear generated electricity will need to be in the mix somewhere. Never said it was the total answer.

The problem with nuclear is unless the capital cost is greatly reduced, it is not economic on all-in cost of energy basis.   Particularly in the US.     Right now Solar, wind and fossil are all cheaper than nuclear.    This is discouraging the sort of investment needed to provide good prospect of improvement.    Trump restricting nuclear exports to China is not helping with nuclear power research in the US.

I didn't think cost was the ultimate issue. Yeah it might hurt but considering the alternatives ..............................

[Anomalocaris]

---

The problem with nuclear is unless the capital cost is greatly reduced, it is not economic on all-in cost of energy basis.   Particularly in the US.     Right now Solar, wind and fossil are all cheaper than nuclear.    This is discouraging the sort of investment needed to provide good prospect of improvement.    Trump restricting nuclear exports to China is not helping with nuclear power research in the US.

I didn't think cost was the ultimate issue. Yeah it might hurt but considering the alternatives ..............................

If you can’t convince the rate payers to subsidize the higher cost, then the cost is the ultimate issue.

It so happens that, on the whole, those willing to pay extra to reduce green house gas emission also loath nuclear power with even more vehement passion.   So nuclear power is the evidence solution to the problem that is hated by those most concerned with the problem even more than the problem itself.

[Fake Messiah]

Panicking about climate? The solution is abundant, scalable, zero-carbon energy, including 4th-gen nuclear. Promising development: Terrestrial Energy’s Integrated Molten Salt Reactor clears a regulatory hurdle in Canada.
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2018/1...in-canada/

Terrestrial Energy is a developer of Generation IV advanced nuclear power plants that use its proprietary Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR®) technology.
IMSR® power plants will provide zero-carbon, reliable, dispatchable, cost-competitive electric power and high grade industrial heat for use in many industrial applications, such as chemical synthesis and desalination, and in so doing extend the application of nuclear energy far beyond electric power markets. They have the potential to make important contributions to industrial competitiveness, energy security, and economic growth. Their deployment will support rapid global decarbonization of the primary energy system by displacing fossil fuel combustion across a broad spectrum. Using an innovative design, and proven and demonstrated molten salt reactor technology, Terrestrial Energy is engaged with regulators and industrial partners to complete IMSR® engineering and to commission first IMSR® power plants in the late 2020s.