New England Electrical Grid

And because GridStatus is maybe the best website out there, it seems that ISONE is in record-setting mode. In the last few weeks we're setting and re-setting wind and solar records as new capacity comes online. I'm not sure where the new grid-scale solar is being built out, but note the BTM solar is mostly rooftop, while "Solar" is electricity going onto the grid elsewhere. Of course we now have two wind plants putting power on the grid so not surprising those records will grow.

1775741571789.png


The thing that's crazy to me though is how much capacity other ISOs are producing in wind and solar. Yes, Texas and California are sunnier, and their total load is 2-4x what we do, but Texas wind production is greater than our entire spring-time load. 4 weeks ago ERCOT produced 28GW(!!) of wind power alone, more than we have ever produced (25GW all time high) and more than double what we do in moderate weather.

Anyways, build more generation and storage, crush the coastal NIMBYs, don't shut down any more nukes.
 
I have found that understanding the editorial choices of the Globe today can be helped by asking “What would John Henry gain or lose from this?”
 
RandomWalk said:
I have found that understanding the editorial choices of the Globe today can be helped by asking “What would John Henry gain or lose from this?”
Click to expand...
I guess I don't know all the facets of John Henry's wealth. What does he have to do with nuclear power?
 
ritchiew said:
I guess I don't know all the facets of John Henry's wealth. What does he have to do with nuclear power?
Click to expand...
It's not about a nuclear power stance or anything necessarily political/ideological. It's about creating new controversy around a stance the Governor took to try to stir up a very sleepy and non-competitive election season into a horse race narrative so Henry can drive clicks and sell newspapers. It's the same playbook as the Glob's endless trolling of the Mayoral race last year with wall-to-wall White Stadium and bike lane "controversies". It didn't really work then because those "controversies" had near-zero mindshare for voters, but they seem to have coalesced on a strategy of throwing out targeted NIMBY red meat to rustle up bunkered-in suburbanites for engagement. This article completely, totally fits the mold. I don't think any of Healey's GOP opponents have said anything one way or the other about nuclear (lots, though, against renewables)...so that's the only real missing ingredient from this being a cause the paper ends up grinding at habitually until November a la White Stadium last year. Maybe they're just trying to provoke a reaction from the candidates that way to test if the angle has any legs.

Frankly, the article is nearly worthless without examining the cost dimension of nuclear. Yeah, safety has come a long way with new reactor designs. Those new designs are also hilariously expensive to implement, and the whole of the Western world--not just the U.S.--has given up the ghost on cost control for building any new nuclear facilities within twelve football fields of budget or schedule. So it's all kind of moot until we reckon with the absolutely wretched current economic outlook for the nuclear industry and how off-kilter the subsidies currently are vs. the results. There was all of two short paragraphs in the article about anything related to cost, and it was nothing but boilerplate before pivoting right back to the safety scaremongering. You'd have a real thinkpiece if the reporter went in more depth there, because cost is going to be way more a real-world factor than "OMG! CHERNOBYL!" on whether this is a thing ultimately worth pursuing or opposing. But, no, just lazy NIMBY concern-trolling all around. It's a type of hackwork that's becoming a Glob trademark under Henry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top