fredfredburger

Thanks to the Macrogrid (https://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/closed-groups/irs/pris.aspx), wind and solar can sell with lower nodal prices to the RTO. Other plants then have to reduce output which adds stress to the system and incurs more costs on the consumer end downstream. You can make a subsidized profit, and I can pay more for electricity that is not better for the environment than Natgas. I don't believe that solar (only able to produce power 50% of the time) in a city famous for cloud cover could be feasibly relied upon for a microgrid in the event of a macro shutdown.

Utility scale batteries are very expensive, will only get more expensive with time as Lithium demand continues to increase, and are inefficient ways of storing energy (Lithium Ion stores 1/100 the energy of gasoline). I am not in favor of building or buying a new Nat Gas generator for a microgrid, but it would be much cheaper (https://www.uspeglobal.com/listings/1334945-used-25-mw-2018-used-ge-tm2500-natural-gas-turbine-generator-sets). The technology is simply not there yet with batteries. Hopefully, someone will be able to create a stable sodium or potassium battery. Solar is not a viable option in Northeast Ohio, and wind will only work when battery tech improves. If we need a microgrid let's just spend the 15 million on the extra nat gas turbine connected to downtown or build another nuclear plant. Until battery technology improves this is just a waste of money and a pro-oil/pro-mining scheme.

My point with nat gas is that we have a micro grid already. Stored energy beneath the lake that we can access and preserve the downtown grid whenever.

Can’t we just build a nuclear plant in the flats and have large amounts of cheap, carbon free, consistent power? I don’t understand the push for new grid infrastructure when we already have huge nat gas stores under the lake.