So like what do you think the cut score will be? Like seriously?

[knight1fox3]

So then a Nuke is no longer economically advantageous so long as natural gas is at its price point?

Not from an infrastructure, permitting, and overall cost of operation perspective it isn't.

 

[RBHeadge PE]

It's all about base load man!! None of this peaking plant nonsense 

I don't disagree with you per se. But baseload is having trouble all over. Gas should be peaking, but its being run as baseload now. It's gonna suck in ~10 years when CNG is super expensive again -yes I know its a cycle and it'll get cheap again a few years later, but that's besides the point.

 

[cornsnicker3]

Time will tell. But the licenses in most of the midwest plants I worked at are coming up due very soon with no intention of renewal.

In the midwest, when I was a consultant power engineer, many of the coal-fired systems were being converted over CNG turbines.

NG is here to stay barring any major carbon tax. It is relatively abundant, easy to transport, and versatile.

 

[RBHeadge PE]

I don't know what CGS is. I am a federal DoD employee. 

However, if you work transmission in the PNW I pretty much know you work for BPA... if I pass the exam I will be looking for a job at the Vancouver office!

Ohh, you're an 830. That's because so few agencies are allowed to offer 840. Most nukes get classified as 830 or 1306

 

[Jackal301]

So then a Nuke is no longer economically advantageous so long as natural gas is at its price point?

Nuclear power, as a base load, is always more economically advantageous. Palo Verde in AZ: 4GW electrical output. 94% capacity factor. 

 

[cornsnicker3]

Fortunately for the pipeline industry, CFR 192 Pipelines are a hot item and will be so long as NG remains important.

 

[Jackal301]

Ohh, you're an 830. That's because so few agencies are allowed to offer 840. Most nukes get classified as 830 or 1306

Nope, I am a 0840. 

 

[Supe]

So then a Nuke is no longer economically advantageous so long as natural gas is at its price point?

Nope.  Especially when Part 52 licensing and first of a kind design changes f*ck you into the ground. 

 

[knight1fox3]

Nuclear power, as a base load, is always more economically advantageous. Palo Verde in AZ: 4GW electrical output. 94% capacity factor. 

See @Supe's post above. :thumbs:

 

[cornsnicker3]

Nope.  Especially when Part 52 licensing and first of a kind design changes f*ck you into the ground. 

Is it justified or is it unnecessary bureaucracy?

 

[RBHeadge PE]

So then a Nuke is no longer economically advantageous so long as natural gas is at its price point?

Combined with an uptick in distributed sources (wind and solar), it isn't for new construction no. Go back to 2004-08, nukes were the ultra competitive.

Not from an infrastructure, permitting, and overall cost of operation perspective it isn't.

Operations costs are still historically low. Spot pricing is a different problem but that effects all large baseload.

inffrastructure, permitting etc - hereafter called debt service, is more a factor for new construction

NG is here to stay barring any major carbon tax. It is relatively abundant, easy to transport, and versatile.

Yep, economics. But we'll hit a cycle where its gets expensive again and the calculus will change.

 

[RBHeadge PE]

Nope, I am a 0840. 

yes, sorry I misrecalled all that. Was it only offered as an 840, or an 800/830/840?

 

[knight1fox3]

inffrastructure, permitting etc - hereafter called debt service, is more a factor for new construction

Agreed to a certain extent. But permitting doesn't only apply to new construction. At least that was my experience with all the Exelon plants in the midwest. They were going under due to all the upkeep and maintenance. And when I say cost of operation, I'm talking paid personnel. CNG operations are becoming close to being fully automated (I also consulted on a few of these projects in the Tampa, FL area).

 

[RBHeadge PE]

Is it justified or is it unnecessary bureaucracy?

I think it's justififed. But nuclear aside, any new large first of a kind project is going to be really expensive.

 

[knight1fox3]

Is it justified or is it unnecessary bureaucracy?

Does it matter? :dunno:

 

[Jackal301]

yes, sorry I misrecalled all that. Was it only offered as an 840, or an 800/830/840?

Only a 0840. Which I am worried that my GS scale will not transfer over to a 0850 if I apply at BPA.. :/ 

 

[cornsnicker3]

Does it matter? :dunno:

If it is substantiated to be unnecessary than it is justified to be change. I think it matters. I think that is why engineers exist...to make progressive improvements.

 

[RBHeadge PE]

Agreed to a certain extent. But permitting doesn't only apply to new construction. At least that was my experience with all the Exelon plants in the midwest. They were going under due to all the upkeep and maintenance. And when I say cost of operation, I'm talking paid personnel. CNG operations are becoming close to being fully automated (I also consulted on a few of these projects in the Tampa, FL area).

I'm thinking $/MWhr. The smaller plants are being closed first because the hotel load is too high.

I haven't seen the most recent operations costs /MWe for NG, so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Jackal301]

I think it's justififed. But nuclear aside, any new large first of a kind project is going to be really expensive.

Especially with GE and Westinghouse plowing themselves into the ground. 

 

[knight1fox3]

If it is substantiated to be unnecessary than it is justified to be change. I think it matters. 

LOL. You don't work for govt. apparently.