Thread by @energybants

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR CLOSURE ALREADY CAUSING ENERGY SHORTAGES:

There's not enough natural gas to feed both the city and all the replacement gas turbines built to accommodate @NRDC's campaign to switch New York to 100% fossil energy.

We predicted exactly this.

https://twitter.com/BrynneKKelly/status/1482052157209825287

NRDC hired their own energy experts, whatever frauds would come up with the obviously wrong answer that the city's biggest power plant, only significant one not powered by natural gas or fuel oil WASN'T NEEDED in an area with severe gas supply constraints

nyti.ms/1uMrzyA

People are going to push back and say that these are customers who chose to be on interruptible service to save money.

The problem is that without Indian Point, the city's strongest defense against extreme cold has vanished.

2GW of nuclear once displaced 6GW natural gas heat.

So these interruptible customers are a smaller line of defence who have already been called up on a weekend.

So that's gone.

Worsening conditions or sudden gas supply problems or prolonged cold means rapid escalation to mortal danger.

NRDC gloated about its victory in warm springtime!

In dangerous conditions like the cold hitting the East Coast this weekend, to kill nuclear is to rely on fossil.

To "push back on fossil" would then be a humanitarian catastrophe waiting to happen.

https://twitter.com/NRDC/status/1388206590864629760?t=HNLRDZHrEPC0oDP6fsmzqQ&s=19

New York and neighboring states have been switching from nuclear to imported natural gas, and only then trying to figure out how to replace the natural gas afterwards.
No expansion of the gas supply occurred in the meantime.

Very short summary here:

https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1474196069181542405

On the loss of New England nuclear plus blocking natural gas pipelines needed to replace them in high-demand periods, from @DoombergT

Due to its location and population, New York City experiences demand bottlenecks. Indian Point was located perfectly.

doomberg.substack.com/p/new-england-…

@NRDC is STILL FIGHTING to close nuclear plants around America.

I fought them for a full year to save my local nuclear plants here in Chicago, as they argued against inclusion of nuclear in IL's otherwise-dangerous clean energy legislation.

They're killing Diablo in California.

Energy "experts" claim nuclear plants like Indian Point couldn't meet peak demand.

Essentially false. A motivated misunderstanding of the energy system.

Ask yourself:

Would it be easier to summit Mt. Everest if its shape were the same but its altitude a kilometer lower?

"Height above sea level" actually does matter.

What these "experts" are really saying is that if nuclear is meeting most (or all) needs during LOW demand, then installing renewables that can fail during HIGH demand is hard to justify.

You have to build peaking capacity anyway.

Nuclear gives you the best possible start to your peaking periods, reducing peak oil burning in the Northeast two ways.

1. Peaks are "lower altitude" above always-on nuclear.

2. Lower draw of gas from storage BEFORE peaks hit means lower peak gas prices so oil less competitive.

Electricity storage can help, of course!

BUT @NRDC EMERGED OUT OF THE MOVEMENT TO BLOCK ELECTRICITY STORAGE FOR NEW YORK CITY.

I'm not joking.

The veterans of the successful battle to kill a 2GW pumped storage facility founded NRDC to keep killing things like nuclear.

What about batteries? Well, batteries only help if you fill them.

Filling and dumping them costs you net energy. It doesn't add energy. If the whole region is short on electricity for days, then batteries become nearly useless.

Cold or hot still air can last for a week or more.

It is for this reason that nuclear plus storage is more effective and reliable in a pinch than weather-dependent renewables plus storage: you know where and when your energy for charging batteries (or pumped hydro) is going to come in.

With wind? Winter solar? You don't.