The climate hawks that are anti nuclear because of waste really surprise me. If you really think life could be almost made unlivable within a hundred years on this planet then it seems nuclear waste would be way down on the list of concerns compared to carbon generation.
One thing the supply chain disruptions of the last several years have driven home is a reminder of the mundane, boring point that geography does, in fact, matter. Not all the time, but when resilience and reliability are essential, it matters most. In light of that, it seems it should be a goal for the US, EU and UK to locate as much of our national security-critical supply chain as possible in the Atlantic basin -- as far from the ability of possible military adversaries to disrupt as possible. So it would be smart to push to develop manufacturing capabilities in the poorer countries in the Atlantic region, on both sides, Caribbean islands like Jamaica as well as Africa and Central-South America.
The Catalyst podcast had an interesting interview with Brett Kugelmass, the CEO and founder of nuclear reactor developer Last Energy. He was very pessimistic about the future of SMRs in the US primarily due to the regulatory climate here. His US based company is building 10 SMRs in Poland.
His take on the regulatory problems with nuclear in the US was particularly interesting. He claimed the problem isn't just the NRC, but rather, it's was actually that the NRC is suffering from a sort of regulatory capture from the utilities due to guaranteed ROI pricing.
I know very little about Jamaica, but it's in the Caribbean so should the risk of hurricanes and other extreme weather be a factor? Which energy options are most weather-resilient?
>> On the mainland, prices max out in Connecticut at $0.19 per kilowatt-hour.
Minor nitpick, but in New England we're currently paying much higher prices than this thanks to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the sky high LNG prices that resulted as Europe scrambled to replace Russian gas.
Firstly, Jamaica's energy demand is not going to be terribly seasonal, because the place doesn't have seasonal variations in temperature. The warmest month has maximums of about 92 Fahrenheit, the "coldest" 86.
Secondly, energy production from solar panels is only varies about 20% from the best to the worst month, compared to a factor of 2 in a place like Portugal, or 5 in northern Europe.
The point being, you don't need massive overbuilds of renewable energy, or masses of seasonal storage, to supply the vast majority of energy needs in a place like Jamaica. Solar, wind, batteries, and a bit of pumped hydro (Jamaica's highest mountains are 7500 feet high, if you can't find an environmentally and physically appropriate location for a pumped hydro plant there's something seriously wrong) will be more than adequate to supply Jamaica's energy needs.
As for siting, the nice thing about solar panels is that you can put quite a lot of them straight on building roof and cut your electricity bill. Yes, that requires sensible regulations, but which is the bigger flight of fancy - a nation like Jamaica pulling off sensible regulation of rooftop solar panel installations, or pulling off a world-class nuclear regulatory environment, particularly as the only plausible partner has what Matt has regularly described as a dysfunctional regulator?
By the time any of the vapourware small reactors are actually demonstrated and producing power (and it remains to be seen whether they will be any cheaper than the disastrous nuclear megaprojects limping to life across the developed world) Jamaica could have replaced a large chunk of its oil imports with renewable energy, and saved a pile of money in the process.
Their aluminum industry has mostly shut down as reseling their power contracts has been worth more than their output, and previously its been effectively subsidized?
Unfortunately nuclear is just not a low cost solution even in the best of circumstances, if you’re not including externalities of burning fossil fuel. I don’t see it reducing Jamaica’s energy costs without international carbon trading.
As far as I understand, per unit generating power, construction costs alone make advanced nuclear currently much more expensive than solar or wind, and those technologies essentially have no operating costs while nuclear is expensive to run.
I’d love to see island nations attempt to capture power from ocean currents and tidal forces - tons of energy there that could be harnessed cleanly.
The climate hawks that are anti nuclear because of waste really surprise me. If you really think life could be almost made unlivable within a hundred years on this planet then it seems nuclear waste would be way down on the list of concerns compared to carbon generation.
One thing the supply chain disruptions of the last several years have driven home is a reminder of the mundane, boring point that geography does, in fact, matter. Not all the time, but when resilience and reliability are essential, it matters most. In light of that, it seems it should be a goal for the US, EU and UK to locate as much of our national security-critical supply chain as possible in the Atlantic basin -- as far from the ability of possible military adversaries to disrupt as possible. So it would be smart to push to develop manufacturing capabilities in the poorer countries in the Atlantic region, on both sides, Caribbean islands like Jamaica as well as Africa and Central-South America.
The Catalyst podcast had an interesting interview with Brett Kugelmass, the CEO and founder of nuclear reactor developer Last Energy. He was very pessimistic about the future of SMRs in the US primarily due to the regulatory climate here. His US based company is building 10 SMRs in Poland.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/strong-opinions-on-smrs/id1593204897?i=1000600029481
His take on the regulatory problems with nuclear in the US was particularly interesting. He claimed the problem isn't just the NRC, but rather, it's was actually that the NRC is suffering from a sort of regulatory capture from the utilities due to guaranteed ROI pricing.
You know if this is a free un-gated piece it probably makes sense to mention that in your Twitter posts about it to generate traffic.
If life was a thing, money could buy/
The rich would live and the poor would die.
Why the rich man have the air condition?
And the poor man have the fan with the man?
https://youtu.be/s4lpP1k73Tk
(Not sure I've transcribed the end of that last line correctly -- please improve if you can.)
I know very little about Jamaica, but it's in the Caribbean so should the risk of hurricanes and other extreme weather be a factor? Which energy options are most weather-resilient?
>> On the mainland, prices max out in Connecticut at $0.19 per kilowatt-hour.
Minor nitpick, but in New England we're currently paying much higher prices than this thanks to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the sky high LNG prices that resulted as Europe scrambled to replace Russian gas.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
> CT $0.24 per kWh
> MA $0.28
> NH $0.30
Germany is a big aluminum exporter and they have pretty expensive electricity. How do they make it work?
PS - I went to Petrojam in maybe 1988 or 1989. I think Van Halen was the headliner...
This is...not a very good idea.
Firstly, Jamaica's energy demand is not going to be terribly seasonal, because the place doesn't have seasonal variations in temperature. The warmest month has maximums of about 92 Fahrenheit, the "coldest" 86.
Secondly, energy production from solar panels is only varies about 20% from the best to the worst month, compared to a factor of 2 in a place like Portugal, or 5 in northern Europe.
The point being, you don't need massive overbuilds of renewable energy, or masses of seasonal storage, to supply the vast majority of energy needs in a place like Jamaica. Solar, wind, batteries, and a bit of pumped hydro (Jamaica's highest mountains are 7500 feet high, if you can't find an environmentally and physically appropriate location for a pumped hydro plant there's something seriously wrong) will be more than adequate to supply Jamaica's energy needs.
As for siting, the nice thing about solar panels is that you can put quite a lot of them straight on building roof and cut your electricity bill. Yes, that requires sensible regulations, but which is the bigger flight of fancy - a nation like Jamaica pulling off sensible regulation of rooftop solar panel installations, or pulling off a world-class nuclear regulatory environment, particularly as the only plausible partner has what Matt has regularly described as a dysfunctional regulator?
By the time any of the vapourware small reactors are actually demonstrated and producing power (and it remains to be seen whether they will be any cheaper than the disastrous nuclear megaprojects limping to life across the developed world) Jamaica could have replaced a large chunk of its oil imports with renewable energy, and saved a pile of money in the process.
Their aluminum industry has mostly shut down as reseling their power contracts has been worth more than their output, and previously its been effectively subsidized?
Unfortunately nuclear is just not a low cost solution even in the best of circumstances, if you’re not including externalities of burning fossil fuel. I don’t see it reducing Jamaica’s energy costs without international carbon trading.
As far as I understand, per unit generating power, construction costs alone make advanced nuclear currently much more expensive than solar or wind, and those technologies essentially have no operating costs while nuclear is expensive to run.
I’d love to see island nations attempt to capture power from ocean currents and tidal forces - tons of energy there that could be harnessed cleanly.
I am pro-poorer countries getting richer
Sure but hasn’t Canada beaten them to it?
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/SMRs-reactor-GE-Hitachi-Ontario-Public-Power-Aecon-Group-nuclear/641483/