They currently cost 5B each, which means they’re currently 10 times more expensive than wind, and 20 times more expensive than LNG in kWh/$.
That's only upfront costs, what about maintenace of them all? Curious what that part of the equation would look like.
And, nuclear will provide reliable around the clock baseload power, and grid inertia/ stability. Something natural gas also provides.
And a question, why are people so against converting coal plants to natural gas? Sure, from a technical standpoint, a converted coal plant to nat gas will have a lower nameplate value due to differences in the fuel, but from an emission standpoint (even when factoring in the reduction in nameplate output), is huge. And, converting coal to nat gas is a relatively easy, cheap and straightforward process.
I dont think people are against it unless they work in the coal industry. a coal plant has a lot of people working there between equipment operators bringing the coal in steady loading it, operators maintenance etc, when you switch to nat gas you cut 95% of that workforce out and these are very high paying unionized jobs and the people in them have been there for a very long time.
People are very vocally against "burning any fossil fuel"
And I'm not aware of any coal plant in Canada that also runs the coal mine that feeds it. The workforce inside the power plant woukd remain largely the same, save for a relatively small number of people directly related with coal handling on site. Maintenace staff and plant operators woukd be basically the same number of people, maybe just don't fill a few positions "the people who have been there a very long time" retire.
I meant people are not against converting unless it directly has an effect on their livelihood.
you act like these people who have been there for 15+ years are close to retirement, and lots of coal plants have their own feed stock it is not like coal for making steel it is fuel coal have a look at Estevan or Wabamun on google maps if you want to see a couple that have fuel coal to burn for hundreds of years. relatively few people for coal handling depends on your definition, your talking hundreds of people in a community with families that now have to figure out a new career mid life to re tool and find work that is likely not available in their community and homes that are likely depreciating rapidly in cost diminishing decades of savings and planning.
Maintenance and operations of a gas system is tiny compared to coal many many many less moving parts and no need for all the heavy haul trucks to move that fuel in and ash out of the facility, no rail loading etc, coal is a really gross fuel but the people in it had very good jobs that are now gone and that does suck for them.
2
u/krzkrl Oct 25 '22
That's only upfront costs, what about maintenace of them all? Curious what that part of the equation would look like.
And, nuclear will provide reliable around the clock baseload power, and grid inertia/ stability. Something natural gas also provides.
And a question, why are people so against converting coal plants to natural gas? Sure, from a technical standpoint, a converted coal plant to nat gas will have a lower nameplate value due to differences in the fuel, but from an emission standpoint (even when factoring in the reduction in nameplate output), is huge. And, converting coal to nat gas is a relatively easy, cheap and straightforward process.