I don't think people fully understand how much load EVs will put on the grid. People are forgetting that in the last twenty years we have made serious strides in reducing consumption on basic things like light bulbs all the way up to electric water heaters and electric baseboard heating for homes. On a commercial and industrial level, switching to LED lights and more efficient motors (the later being a Canadian federal and provincial government grant program), sophisticated Building Automation Systems and efficiency programs have all contributed to a lot less energy consumption.

So, knowing how efficient things have gotten, have you ever heard of surplus grid capacity? Nope. 

Anytime we make something use less, we just find something else to use that freed up energy. We are not ready for EVs. I fully see the necessity and need for EVs, I want them, but we're not ready for them. Humans in general aren't ready to make the sacrifices needed to curb climate change. 

@chetlaham Nuke plants are significantly more complex than any thermal plant. Having spent time in a thermal generating station, I can confidently say this. Thermal stations can also be scaled in any size from small to large. Generally one unit peaks out at around 6-800MW, but you can have multiple units per plant that can make the whole station generate well in to the thousands of MWs, check out Nanticoke Generating Station. Thermal is far more adaptive and easier to use. Nuclear is the best bang for buck, but thanks to advances in technology it can finally make small MWs instead of the big dickin' 1000MW+ per unit. 

@Combo52 new nuke builds are really the only way out of this for the long term unless something significantly changes in generating technology. Wind and solar are great for peak power production, but at this current juncture they're a total pain in the ass. We took one 100MW unit offline because the wind was forecast to come up, but it never did. So we spend close to five hours firing a boiler to heat it and the turbine up without generating a single watt of power. Hows that for saving the whales? Five hours of generating GHGs for nothing. At least when you make power you can account for why you made GHGs. 

Nuclear, in reality, is actually the cheapest form of electricity. Initially nuclear was so cheap to run that you couldn't meter it, it was easier to just charge the ratepayer a monthly base fee. But since nuclear has been regulated out of sight, its now crazy expensive which isnt fair. Greenpeace jammed up a new nuclear build in Ontario in the early 2010s to the point that Ontario Power Generation cancelled it because the legal process for approval, which Greenpeace appealed, ended up costing wayyy too much and delayed the project five years. And thats money the ratepayer will never ever get back. To do any sort of work in a nuclear power plant takes four times the planning and ends up costing a magnitude more than any other form of generation because of regulations based on fear. 

I work in oil and gas now, but the level of hypocrisy and stupidity I saw in power generation is the same as O&G. All this bullshit is caused by people who whine and complain and have no idea the repercussions of their demands. I am for sensible and responsible environmentalism. But the current mantra and group think from environmentalists is stupid. They will plug their ears when you tell them that mining metals for EVs is significantly more polluting than fossil fuels, requires fossil fuels to do it, and often happens in countries with little to no environmental and labour regulations or ones that can be bought out.

EVs make a lot of sense when you consider the power generated to charge them can either be nuclear, or a thermal plant with a carbon capture system on it. Thats true net zero. That makes total sense to me and I totally applaud and want that idea. That would remove a significant amount of GHGs. But we need to weigh the environmental costs of mining and how to make those cleaner. Google the Giant Mine in Canada. Its the mining playbook to extract ever last ounce of ore and then go bankrupt leaving the reclamation to the taxpayer. Thanks!

We are a wasteful society, driven by whats new and hot. Things were disposable before, but now its on another level. Social media alone accounts for roughly 10% of energy consumption. If were as doomed as we are regarding the climate, its time to shut that shit down and prioritize what we need to live, and Instagram aint part of that. But we won't do that. We're not going to do a f*cking thing about climate change because it will interrupt and cause too much sacrifice to our lives. 

I never said it was a bad thing. Its a good thing. But the level of education and certs required adds to their complexity.

"static and passive assets vs active mechanisms" hahaha what are you talking about?

"Nuclear plants have been controlled by relay logic" No, they're not, and I dont think you know what that means. 

"Replication does not mean added complexity in of itself" So if I go from two pumps to eight, that's not more complex?

"especially when a nuclear plant is designed essentially as series (or) logic circuit such that the plant is trying to shut itself down but many parts of the system (controlled by operators) must be within range to keep it running." I dont even know what you're trying to say here.

"The dosimeters, radiation detectors, ect are supplementary additions and do not directly control the plant itself." Certain rad detectors have the ability to trip the facility. Supplementary or not, these things increase the complexity of the overall facility.

"Same goes for the instrumentation- half of it does not anatomically control the reactor- its merely data feedback for the operators." I don't think you understand controls in an industrial setting. Whats an anatomic control? Never heard of that. 

"Regarding load swings, these can be compensated for via operator control, so much so France generates most of its power via nuclear energy without trouble." No, they cannot. Why would operators intervene when the facility is in automatic? The controls are designed to run the facility in auto. I would not want to work in any power plant that requires me to intervene any time the demand changes noticeably. That would make for a very dangerous plant. And how do you know France doesn't have trouble? It's also not "trouble" demand swings are part of the normal operating cadence. Have you been in one of their nuclear facilities at 5am to 9am, and 4pm to 8pm? Have you been in any power plant at those times? Do you have any idea why I mentioned those times?

"My question to you is, have you seen the AC and DC control schematics to a nuclear plant vs a coal plant?" What the hell is a AC and DC control schematics in reference to a power plant? I've never heard of that before.

Listen, I've worked one year in thermal power generation and ten years in refining where we generate our own power through thermal and sell it to the grid and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I think you're just throwing words together to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Also, there is nothing wrong with decay heat, or the thermal mass of a reactor in normal start up or shut down- on the contrary you want a gradual heating in a reactor. These are all taken into account and dealt with accordingly by the operators.

I said this in an earlier reply. Thanks for using it to prove my point because a nuclear unit takes days to start up versus hours for coal. Days because the system is significantly more complex because it has significantly more parts than coal.

Refueling isn't an issue either when it is done in intervals spanning years. A coal plant needs to be refueled continuously, in real time.

A coal fired plant does not need to be slowed or shut down for refueling. A nuke plant does. This downtime is time not generating revenue.  Refueling operations are big big jobs for reactors.

These terms can be Googled.

I did, only two exist. And theyre terms used in accounting.

You're telling my 3 mile Island was controlled by servers and desktop computers?

The controls for second generation and third gen reactors is mostly based off of PID loops backed by pneumatics. There is discreet controls, which is what you call "relay logic", cannot do anything but yes/no controls. Thats where pneumatics and PID loops come in to play, for controls requiring setpoints and ranges. Which you need very very much in a power plant. Power plants cannot be controlled purely by discreet, binary, yes/no controls. You need controls that can vary 0-100 and everywhere in between and this is essence of pneumatics and PID. 

Depends on how those pumps are controlled. If the two pumps are lead/lag, VFD driven, and controlled by PLCs monitoring many variables vs 8 pumps switched on across the line by an operator the 8 pump approach would be simpler.

Okay, well, maybe I need to be more exact here. If a process requires eight pumps to function, where as another process that produces the same results requires two... The one with eight is more complex. Also, no one says "swtiched on across the line". Thats not what "Across the line" means. No one says that. 

Nuclear plants on an elementary level are designed to trip rather easily when something goes wrong.

Every industrial plant/process is designed to easily trip. Thats what an SIS loop is. 

Not much more complexity. 

So a whole department thats tasked with maintaining, tracking, issuing, observing, etc this whole silo which probably employs people in the double digits is "not much more complexity"?

So your saying every single data input automatically controls, or has the ability to trip the reactor instead of just lighting up an annunciator?

I didn't say that. You said half the instrumentation doesn't do anything other than display data. Thats an awful lot of instrumentation thats on an advisory role only... I've never seen a plant like that before. 

So in your words, how does France keep the lights on? I've never set foot in RTE or a French generating station, so you would easily know more than me on this one.

I do. When a plant is synced to the grid and generating power, there is minimal operator intervention. Any plant that requires extensive operator intervention for steady state is a shitty plant thats dangerous and unstable, no one would design a plant to be like that. Load demands are a normal operating cadence. Operators would not intervene, automatic would take care of that. Just so happens that thermal plants figure it out quick. Nuclear takes a long time for a load change to smooth out. Chances are, at those times, a distribution centre would load shift before hand to enable a reactor to handle a load change. 

If you don't know that generating station and substations have an extensive 125 volt DC system to control indicators, sensors, breaker trip solenoids, gauges, auxiliary relays, protection relays, ect ect then your rebuttal would be mere projection.

I knew what you were saying, but I was rebutting that way because thats not at all what its called in industry to prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Just like how 125V DC systems for controls are not a thing either, its 24V at  4-20mA. What you were referring to is the instrumentation or controls system. But what you don't realize is that there are a shit load of AC and DC busses in a power plant. DC exciter system for the generator. AVR for the generator. AC back up bus. AC Station Power. DC back up bus. DC UPS bus. If you're going to pretend you're knowledgeable in industrial processes, at least talk the talk and use industry terms. 

AC power can dip and sag during a fault, so you have to use batteries and DC power for the sensing and control in any plant.

Thats not why DC is used for controls. 

Also, what you uploaded was a grainy single line diagram. SLDs is what theyre called in industry, not schematics. Again, if you're going to pretend you're knowledgeable in industrial processes, at least talk the talk and use industry terms. 

I am far more aware than you can comprehend of each voltage level and power system in a generating station.

Well thats good, considering the other year you told me in order to generate more power all you have to do is spin the generator faster.