Why is MA not greener yet? (Worcester, Plymouth: 2013, utilities, live in)

[dpm1]

Originally Posted by 495neighbor

Nuclear is not green energy. Geothermal is a good solution.

Nuclear produces exponentially more power than so called "green" sources can actually sustain the electrical needs on its own and has no emissions. Modern nuclear plants produce little by product.

What exactly is not green about it? Nuclear is an actual solution, solar and wind? Just a pipe dream.

[BobMane]

I read the article previously posted about coal plants shutting down. What is not clear is if they are simply changing over to gas or actually shutting down.

[dpm1]

Originally Posted by BobMane

I read the article previously posted about coal plants shutting down. What is not clear is if they are simply changing over to gas or actually shutting down.

I believe many of them are shutting down. Challenge with gas is line capacity.

[timberline742]

We're not getting more nuclear anytime soon. Not until they "fix" the transmission issue and don't need to have these plants near populations. Forget about it.

Green is where it is at.

[dpm1]

Originally Posted by timberline742

We're not getting more nuclear anytime soon. Not until they "fix" the transmission issue and don't need to have these plants near populations. Forget about it.

Green is where it is at.

"Green" will do little to alleviate the coming capacity crunch. New nuclear facilities particularly thorium based are tremendously safe tearing down the old facilities and replacing them with new facilities would be a major increase in green energy as well as safety.

[wolfgang239]

"green" isn't the answer. Having an electrical grid with diversity in fuel sources is the answer. What happens when natural gas prices go up? What happens on days where the sun doesn't shine?

Nuclear plants are "base load" facilities. That is to say, you can't ramp them up and down rapidly without decreased efficiency/safety and higher cost. If a nuke plant SCRAMs off line it can be days before it will be fired up. When you overbuild solar and wind power/ when a nuke plant trips off on a dark and dreary week with no wind, time for some rolling blackouts.

Trust me, there are much smarter people than you and I out there who know all of this, and it will not be changing any time soon. New England screwed itself over with no foresight and overbuilding natural gas. You can't overbuild anything, including "green power".

The key starts at home. Use less energy, retrofit your home with efficiency measures, don't light up and heat/cool skyscrapers 24/7. Solar on your own home to offset your tax on the grid, and therefore the amount of dirty generation required at any given time. You are the one to blame, you use electricity and you want it cheap and reliably. You get to pick two: cheap, reliable, environmentally friendly.

[BobMane]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

"green" isn't the answer. Having an electrical grid with diversity in fuel sources is the answer. What happens when natural gas prices go up? What happens on days where the sun doesn't shine?

Nuclear plants are "base load" facilities. That is to say, you can't ramp them up and down rapidly without decreased efficiency/safety and higher cost. If a nuke plant SCRAMs off line it can be days before it will be fired up. When you overbuild solar and wind power/ when a nuke plant trips off on a dark and dreary week with no wind, time for some rolling blackouts.

Trust me, there are much smarter people than you and I out there who know all of this, and it will not be changing any time soon. New England screwed itself over with no foresight and overbuilding natural gas. You can't overbuild anything, including "green power".

The key starts at home. Use less energy, retrofit your home with efficiency measures, don't light up and heat/cool skyscrapers 24/7. Solar on your own home to offset your tax on the grid, and therefore the amount of dirty generation required at any given time. You are the one to blame, you use electricity and you want it cheap and reliably. You get to pick two: cheap, reliable, environmentally friendly.

makes sense to me. micorgrids would not hurt

[GeoffD]

Most of what I have to say has been covered:

Today, natural gas pipeline capacity is the short term issue for electrical power generation and seasonal price spikes in natural gas and electric bills. The global warming freaks and NIMBY people have teamed up to stop pipeline expansion at an enormous cost to the rest of us.

Solar panels are still plenty efficient at 42 degrees latitude and with the cloud cover we have. You don't need a desert in Nevada or Arizona. Solar cells are a semiconductor. They follow Moore's Law just like any other semiconductor technology. It is highly likely that panels will be cost-effective without subsidies in a decade. Battery technology is marching along at the same pace. You'll recharge your plug-in hybrid off the panel on your roof. You'll run your LED lighting off the battery in your house. You'll mostly run your heat pump to heat and cool your house off your solar panel with a natural gas auxiliary heat source for peak winter heating needs. With 20+ SEER heat pumps and LED lighting, a house doesn't have much of an electric bill even if it doesn't have a solar panel.

I don't want the noise pollution of a windmill anywhere near my house. I have no issue with them obstructing my view.

I think we should have one standardized nuke plant design and one highly enforced plant operating standard. When every plant is a 1-off and you have plants like Vermont Yankee that had very poor operating practices, it's a problem. I think we should replace all our natural gas fired plants with nukes but they have to be standardized and on sites that don't see earthquakes, floods, or tidal waves.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by 495neighbor

Nuclear is not green energy. Geothermal is a good solution.

Hydroelectric is the best source of large scale, carbon free electricity.

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

Hydroelectric is the best source of large scale, carbon free electricity.

And New England is presently served by a 2000MW HVDC transmission line that originates in St. James Bay and is powered by massive hydroelectric dams. The damage was done years ago with flooding for hydroelectric dams. People are very opposed to another one of these lines being built (Northern Pass). We could have 1200MW of cheap Canadian hydro but people don't want to deal with the environmental consequences. The same anti-pipeline conspiracy theorists, NIMBYs and environmentalists (all with valid points) are fighting as hard as they can when in reality this is one of the best options.

The existing power line is the largest single source of electricity in the region for reference.