I talk with former FERC commissioner Allison Clements about the challenges of grid modernization, clean energy integration, and where FERC can — and can’t — drive the energy transition.
Another great podcast David. At one point you said ..."it seems like it would be cheaper for Microsoft. Rather than spending $1.4 billion on a nuclear plant, you could probably spend like a third that much on grid-enhancing technologies and just boost the capacity of the grid you're on."
I'd like to point out that there is a big difference between having reliable, firm power, and having an optimized transmission system. We need both. What Microsoft and data centers need is reliable power 24/7. Even with greatly increased long distance and inter-regional transmission lines, there will still be significant periods of time when wind, solar, and batteries will come up short. The best examples of this would be either hot days with all generation running full out while the sun sets or cold winter nights with low wind output over extended regions. Very recently the DOE released "The *updated* pathway to: Advanced Nuclear Commercial Liftoff" report. The report looks at the costs of expanding renewables, transmission, and storage vs. also expanding "firm generation" such as nuclear along with the former. The conclusion is clear: to optimize cost, you need both.
Nuclear does not “displace” or “compete with” renewables; decarbonization will require both new nuclear and renewable capacity. Including nuclear and other clean firm resources reduces the cost of decarbonization by reducing the need for variable generation capacity, energy storage, and transmission.
The public has been misled by Levelized Costs of Energy (LCOE) analyses which will always show variable renewables being the lowest cost. The real cost of electricity is the total system cost, and firm generation that is not subject to the whims of the weather is essential to provide a least-cost electricity
grid. A great many NGOs are using LCOE analyses to argue that nuclear is irrelevant. They are doing us all a great disservice.
At one point she says that $ million mile/GW. How does that square with for example the longest HV transmission in 20 yrs, the SunZia. Its about 550 miles , 3GW and is priced out at 11 billion$
thats 1.65 billion $ vs 11 billion$. Thats a pretty large difference, maybe you can find out an answer.
That is a pretty short transmission line. I know that transmission lines also come with $/mWh to cover initial cost, and maintenance which adds an not insignificant cost.
Not a question, but that price is almost 2/3 the cost of 3 x AP1000 once the manufacturing is at speed. That just makes so little sense.
And another question which would be a good show, is about Australia and them being close to 30% DG. I am very curious to know how that is effecting electricity prices. What about the people who don't have solar, are their prices going up, and if not, why not?
And if it's working so well there, what's different there vs here?
Another great podcast David. At one point you said ..."it seems like it would be cheaper for Microsoft. Rather than spending $1.4 billion on a nuclear plant, you could probably spend like a third that much on grid-enhancing technologies and just boost the capacity of the grid you're on."
I'd like to point out that there is a big difference between having reliable, firm power, and having an optimized transmission system. We need both. What Microsoft and data centers need is reliable power 24/7. Even with greatly increased long distance and inter-regional transmission lines, there will still be significant periods of time when wind, solar, and batteries will come up short. The best examples of this would be either hot days with all generation running full out while the sun sets or cold winter nights with low wind output over extended regions. Very recently the DOE released "The *updated* pathway to: Advanced Nuclear Commercial Liftoff" report. The report looks at the costs of expanding renewables, transmission, and storage vs. also expanding "firm generation" such as nuclear along with the former. The conclusion is clear: to optimize cost, you need both.
Following is a quote from the executive summary of the DOE report at https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/
Nuclear does not “displace” or “compete with” renewables; decarbonization will require both new nuclear and renewable capacity. Including nuclear and other clean firm resources reduces the cost of decarbonization by reducing the need for variable generation capacity, energy storage, and transmission.
The public has been misled by Levelized Costs of Energy (LCOE) analyses which will always show variable renewables being the lowest cost. The real cost of electricity is the total system cost, and firm generation that is not subject to the whims of the weather is essential to provide a least-cost electricity
grid. A great many NGOs are using LCOE analyses to argue that nuclear is irrelevant. They are doing us all a great disservice.
Hi David. I have a few questions.
At one point she says that $ million mile/GW. How does that square with for example the longest HV transmission in 20 yrs, the SunZia. Its about 550 miles , 3GW and is priced out at 11 billion$
thats 1.65 billion $ vs 11 billion$. Thats a pretty large difference, maybe you can find out an answer.
That is a pretty short transmission line. I know that transmission lines also come with $/mWh to cover initial cost, and maintenance which adds an not insignificant cost.
Not a question, but that price is almost 2/3 the cost of 3 x AP1000 once the manufacturing is at speed. That just makes so little sense.
And another question which would be a good show, is about Australia and them being close to 30% DG. I am very curious to know how that is effecting electricity prices. What about the people who don't have solar, are their prices going up, and if not, why not?
And if it's working so well there, what's different there vs here?
Keep up the good work.
jay