Skip to main content

On Subsidizing Millstone

July 2020 was the month that a lot of Connecticut residents noticed a significant increase in their electricity bills. The reason turns out to be that CT's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) approved (and the governor signed) in September 2019 a requirement that Eversource and United Illuminating - CT's two major power providers - purchase electricity from the financially-torn Millstone Nuclear Power Plant.

Governor Lamont Applauds PURA Approval of Millstone Contract Between Dominion, Eversource, and United Illuminating
https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2019/09-2019/Governor-Lamont-Applauds-PURA-Approval-of-Millstone-Contract

Of course, as soon as everyone saw their monthly bills increase - about 7c/kWh or almost 50% - the screaming started and "investigations" were called for and as of this post it is rumored to get rolled back, at least temporarily:

PURA to investigate Eversource Energy rate hikes
https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/pura-to-investigate-eversource-energy-rate-hikes/

The idea of subsidizing Millstone seems to grate on a lot of people's nerves, especially given the significant diametric positions many have on nuclear energy.

But let's go back and read a quote from the opening paragraph in that first link:
“Had this contract not gone forward, the facility would be in danger of closing down which would have increased greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent across the New England region,” Governor Lamont said. “This important step keeps Connecticut and all of New England from back sliding on addressing climate change. Now we can renew our focus on offshore wind and other renewable energy resources to fully transition to a clean energy grid by 2040.”
(My emphasis...wow, something I agree with Lamont on...is that bacon flying overhead...?)

The one thing we're forgetting about all this: the societal value of keeping Millstone Nuclear online.

How many of us have thought (or declared) that we're willing to pay extra for energy to support sustainable sources like wind and PV to replace fossil fuels? Probably a lot of us. Maybe most of us. And subsidizing energy from Millstone is a step in the direction of an environmentally-friendly future.

Wait, wut? Yep.

What's the biggest problem with PV and solar? It's inconsistent. You are highly unlikely to get power from it at night (zero chance with PV) so you either need energy storage for use at night or alternative sources of energy. The technology for macro-scale storage solutions are way, way off right now* so the other alternative sources of energy are fossil fuel-based. If we want to transition to larger-scale PV and wind, then off-peak generation has to be by these fossil fuels: natural gas, oil, and coal. All exhaust carbon.

But wait...what about Millstone Nuclear? It's carbon-free, just sits there making power -- and it's already there. With nuclear, we could throttle it down during the day when we're generating with PV and wind, and when the sun starts to go down we throttle it back up to provide nighttime energy. In the meantime, technology advances toward true macro-scale energy storage solutions. There is no other environmentally-friendly carbon-free alternative right now.

But due to regulations, nuclear energy is expensive (long gone are the days of "too cheap to meter"); Millstone is losing money, and is at risk of being shut down. If we let it shut down, then its output will have to be replaced with carbon energy. So unless we drop our concerns with its existence (or allow more installations using newer technologies) nuclear is not getting any cheaper. Further, Millstone's life is finite; each plant has a regulated licensed life limit (I believe Millstone 2 is 2035, and Millstone 3 is 2045; Millstone 1 is already shut down). So the clock is ticking...

If your end goal is carbon-free environmentally friendly production of energy, you'll never get there unless/until the technology is developed for reliable, affordable macro-storage -- or you embrace nuclear. Otherwise we have to use more fossil fuel.

You've declared that you're willing to pay more to get to environmentally-friendly/sustainable energy. Subsidizing Millstone is an effective, immediate transitional step toward that environmentally-acceptable future. Let's embrace it.

- Greg

08/04/20 Edit: Another factor in Connecticut spiking energy costs is the state's decision to adhere to stringent Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards.

"Green energy" ain't (yet) cheap energy...

https://yankeeinstitute.org/2020/08/03/why-are-electricity-costs-spiking-in-connecticut/


*A nice "battery" solution is the old, but still functional, Rocky River Pumped Hydro Station along Route 7. The lake was created when they damned up the Rocky River to create the pumped hydro facility, creating Candlewood Lake.

"Pumped hydro" uses turbines powered by the cheaper overnight off-peak energy to pump water from the Housatonic River up into Candlewood Lake; during the day the plant releases water down from the lake to drive the same turbines to generate power and sell it back at the higher day rate. Its efficiency is incredible, exceeding most other storage sources, and Rocky River is still functional nearly a century later.

It's a big energy battery.

To support PV and wind, that concept can be turned up to 11: we could use excess PV/wind-generated energy during the day to pump the water up into the lake, then at night drain the water to generate electricity when PV/wind cannot.

Alas, that particular station - the first ever pumped hydro in the USA, I believe - is not big enough for the electrical loads that we'll all need at night, and there's just no way in Hades anyone would ever get approval to build another one today. So...off to further development of chemistry battery technology we go...

Thank you for your rapt attention on Yet Another Greg Rant. Time for beer.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On "Microsquirting" the Porsche 914 - Part 2, Which Aftermarket Fuel Injection System?

Which Aftermarket Fuel Injection System? Return to Part 1 Scenario: two Porsche 914s, one 2L 4-banger street car with stock engine, one 2L 4-banger race car with modded engine. Greg's street 914 The street car engine has a fully-functioning Bosch D-Jetronic system, but as noted in Part 1 I don't trust it. It seems to work great at times but every now and then, usually when I'm an hour away from home, it'll have this massive burp and run bad for a bit. Makes me nervous. And it seems to be extremely sensitive to fuel selection; a couple times it just did not like the fuel I got from some stations. The race car's engine is modified and uses dual Dellorto carburetors. I have given thought to preparing prepping it to SCCA's Limited Prep Production regs, which requires fuel injection using the stock throttle body and intake manifold. Combine the two needs and maybe I can mod the street car and learn something about EFI in the process that could apply to

On "Microsquirting" the Porsche 914

Bosch D-Jetronic The Bosch D-Jetronic system is pretty cool, especially when you consider it was designed in the 1960s. "Computer"-controlled electronic fuel injection with manifold pressure sensor, intake temperature sensor, crankshaft (well, distributor) angle sensor, and throttle position sensor/switch. It uses constant fuel pressure and flow, so only injection duration needs to be modified to control air/fuel mixture. It measures incoming airflow by monitoring the intake manifold pressure; engine speed, temperature, and other factors are monitored for the purpose of fine-tuning injection duration. Ignition is by a standard cam-driven distributor with an internal D-jet-specific pickup for the crank/cam angle position. This "speed-density" D-Jet system was used on many cars of the period, including Volvo, Jaguar, Volkswagen, and of course, the Porsche 914 (1.7L and 2L engines only; the 1.8L used L-Jetronic -- "L" for "luft" or "air&qu

On "Microsquirting" the Porsche 914 - Part 3, The Design

The Design Return to Part 2 Recall my design parameters so far: Use the stock intake manifold(s) and throttle body; Use stock injectors; Use stock fuel pump and pressure regulator; Replace D-Jet components only when it makes sense; Upgrade fuel injection only, ignition to follow later; Bolt-on wherever possible so others can install it; Should not require permanent mods to stock components (so it can be reverted); Price-sensitive -- keep as inexpensive as possible. I quickly learned early on I had one conflict: the D-Jet system uses "low impedance injectors" and the Microsquirt system needs "high impendance injectors". I'll lead you to this link if you want to learn the difference but it basically comes down to electrical resistance. I could use the D-Jet injectors if I added a resistor pack -- which is exactly what VW/Porsche did when they used similar injectors on the L-Jet system for the 1.8L 914 engine.  FiveO High Impedance Injectors