Jesse
@ember42.bsky.social
Process engineer. Energy, infrastructure, industrial decarbonisation, P(🌎net0|☢️📉) << P(🌎net0|☢️📈), Sulphur. Views my own. Ember421 at x
Yes. But even without a new player, the environment for deal making is likley to improve as the 'chickens come home to roost' in terms of the damage of the chaos monkey policy approach.
November 23, 2025 at 11:32 AM
Yes. But even without a new player, the environment for deal making is likley to improve as the 'chickens come home to roost' in terms of the damage of the chaos monkey policy approach.
Or are we ragging the puck to hold out for a better environment?
That is *a* strategy.
That is *a* strategy.
November 22, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Or are we ragging the puck to hold out for a better environment?
That is *a* strategy.
That is *a* strategy.
Then we are just picking political winners to be subsidized by the political loosers? Thats where this ends out.
We should be doing cost of service for the energy supply, and then if there is something we need to encourage beyond that, explitly and on-budget subsidizing it from the tax-base.
We should be doing cost of service for the energy supply, and then if there is something we need to encourage beyond that, explitly and on-budget subsidizing it from the tax-base.
November 14, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Then we are just picking political winners to be subsidized by the political loosers? Thats where this ends out.
We should be doing cost of service for the energy supply, and then if there is something we need to encourage beyond that, explitly and on-budget subsidizing it from the tax-base.
We should be doing cost of service for the energy supply, and then if there is something we need to encourage beyond that, explitly and on-budget subsidizing it from the tax-base.
How do you define 'value' in 'value of service'?
November 14, 2025 at 4:09 PM
How do you define 'value' in 'value of service'?
So they should subsidize the residential users, instead of everyone ideally paying on a 'cost of service' basis?
Their workers would pay for their own increased distribution demand, and that cost would transfer via their pay cheques...
Their workers would pay for their own increased distribution demand, and that cost would transfer via their pay cheques...
November 14, 2025 at 3:46 PM
So they should subsidize the residential users, instead of everyone ideally paying on a 'cost of service' basis?
Their workers would pay for their own increased distribution demand, and that cost would transfer via their pay cheques...
Their workers would pay for their own increased distribution demand, and that cost would transfer via their pay cheques...
3. Industrial tends to disporotionally locate where power is cheaper, espcially for high volume users. The canonical example is aluminum smelters.
November 14, 2025 at 3:44 PM
3. Industrial tends to disporotionally locate where power is cheaper, espcially for high volume users. The canonical example is aluminum smelters.
2. Industrial tends to either have TX connected HV connections (small number, but large volume users, like EAF steel or aluminium)
Or have MV connections, and pay for their own internal LV distribution grid, so we should expect lower DX costs on the system.
Or have MV connections, and pay for their own internal LV distribution grid, so we should expect lower DX costs on the system.
November 14, 2025 at 3:44 PM
2. Industrial tends to either have TX connected HV connections (small number, but large volume users, like EAF steel or aluminium)
Or have MV connections, and pay for their own internal LV distribution grid, so we should expect lower DX costs on the system.
Or have MV connections, and pay for their own internal LV distribution grid, so we should expect lower DX costs on the system.
1. Industrial load profile tends to be a lot flatter. Morning and evening peaks exist *becuase* of residential, and the broader daytime > night is driven by commercial users. Industrial tends to be closer to 24x7 (or 24x5), so more of their volume is in off-peak hours.
November 14, 2025 at 3:42 PM
1. Industrial load profile tends to be a lot flatter. Morning and evening peaks exist *becuase* of residential, and the broader daytime > night is driven by commercial users. Industrial tends to be closer to 24x7 (or 24x5), so more of their volume is in off-peak hours.
Broadly, industrial clusters are probably somewhat subsidized, but in a 'fair' market (price is proportional to cost to serve), we should expect industrial to have singinficantly lower overall price.
November 14, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Broadly, industrial clusters are probably somewhat subsidized, but in a 'fair' market (price is proportional to cost to serve), we should expect industrial to have singinficantly lower overall price.
Some big industrial users are transmission (HV) connected and dont use the distribution system at all. Im curious what share that is.
Even the DX connected ones tend to be lumpy, i.e. have a 13kV connection so they need less DX resource per MW of capacity. The LV DX is effectively internal.
Even the DX connected ones tend to be lumpy, i.e. have a 13kV connection so they need less DX resource per MW of capacity. The LV DX is effectively internal.
November 14, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Some big industrial users are transmission (HV) connected and dont use the distribution system at all. Im curious what share that is.
Even the DX connected ones tend to be lumpy, i.e. have a 13kV connection so they need less DX resource per MW of capacity. The LV DX is effectively internal.
Even the DX connected ones tend to be lumpy, i.e. have a 13kV connection so they need less DX resource per MW of capacity. The LV DX is effectively internal.
I have had connections in
A) the same terminal or adjacent one, and it was fine. And,
B) switched to terminal 5. Luckily, I had ~3 hours.
If your only experience was A, you wouldn't have realized that you might as well be switching airports if you happened to book something setup as B..
A) the same terminal or adjacent one, and it was fine. And,
B) switched to terminal 5. Luckily, I had ~3 hours.
If your only experience was A, you wouldn't have realized that you might as well be switching airports if you happened to book something setup as B..
November 11, 2025 at 10:55 PM
I have had connections in
A) the same terminal or adjacent one, and it was fine. And,
B) switched to terminal 5. Luckily, I had ~3 hours.
If your only experience was A, you wouldn't have realized that you might as well be switching airports if you happened to book something setup as B..
A) the same terminal or adjacent one, and it was fine. And,
B) switched to terminal 5. Luckily, I had ~3 hours.
If your only experience was A, you wouldn't have realized that you might as well be switching airports if you happened to book something setup as B..
Right, but if they get vetoed all the time by the senate and the president, they can't effectively legislate. And that is their only real mechanism to actualize that power.
November 8, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Right, but if they get vetoed all the time by the senate and the president, they can't effectively legislate. And that is their only real mechanism to actualize that power.
The president then would be better thought of as the 'chief administrative officer', with limited policy setting authority, and focused on implementing the laws of the Congress.
November 8, 2025 at 12:13 PM
The president then would be better thought of as the 'chief administrative officer', with limited policy setting authority, and focused on implementing the laws of the Congress.
Return the senate to selection by states (gov nom, elected body confirms), but adjsut its powers to be clearly subservient.
Then you might have a structure that can actually legislate in regular order.
Then you might have a structure that can actually legislate in regular order.
November 8, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Return the senate to selection by states (gov nom, elected body confirms), but adjsut its powers to be clearly subservient.
Then you might have a structure that can actually legislate in regular order.
Then you might have a structure that can actually legislate in regular order.
For the American system, making the seated members of congress also be the presidential electors, and setting the removal threshold to 50%+1 (Remeber, they selected the president so they *should* be alligned on keeping them) would go a long way.
November 8, 2025 at 12:09 PM
For the American system, making the seated members of congress also be the presidential electors, and setting the removal threshold to 50%+1 (Remeber, they selected the president so they *should* be alligned on keeping them) would go a long way.
There should be one governing layer that is elected, and is clearly pre-eminant, so that the party that wins can actually govern via regular order. The other branches can be breaks, but shouldn't be impossible to over ride vetos.
November 8, 2025 at 12:07 PM
There should be one governing layer that is elected, and is clearly pre-eminant, so that the party that wins can actually govern via regular order. The other branches can be breaks, but shouldn't be impossible to over ride vetos.
The obstructionism built into the US system (multiple veto points, different factions having some level of veto) is what drives all the work arounds like excessive executive power, 'legislation by regulation' etc.
November 8, 2025 at 12:01 PM
The obstructionism built into the US system (multiple veto points, different factions having some level of veto) is what drives all the work arounds like excessive executive power, 'legislation by regulation' etc.
Yes, and that's mostly appropriate. We dont have the market scale to support a huge variety of designs while having any potential for NOAK costs.
We should still be able to support a large scale design though.
We should still be able to support a large scale design though.
November 6, 2025 at 8:10 PM
Yes, and that's mostly appropriate. We dont have the market scale to support a huge variety of designs while having any potential for NOAK costs.
We should still be able to support a large scale design though.
We should still be able to support a large scale design though.
I think it's premature to speculate too much more until the first unit is actually built.
After that they should have much better numbers though.
After that they should have much better numbers though.
November 6, 2025 at 8:09 PM
I think it's premature to speculate too much more until the first unit is actually built.
After that they should have much better numbers though.
After that they should have much better numbers though.
So I doubt SK would see less than unit 4.
Long term, its not clear to me. A lot depends on supply chain cost, along with more standardized construction. But mostly on cutting down on indirect hours...
Long term, its not clear to me. A lot depends on supply chain cost, along with more standardized construction. But mostly on cutting down on indirect hours...
November 6, 2025 at 3:31 PM
So I doubt SK would see less than unit 4.
Long term, its not clear to me. A lot depends on supply chain cost, along with more standardized construction. But mostly on cutting down on indirect hours...
Long term, its not clear to me. A lot depends on supply chain cost, along with more standardized construction. But mostly on cutting down on indirect hours...
My understanding is that the plan is for OPG to be heavily involved in the SK projects.
Assuming that includes a portion of the FOAK project team, that could help keep it towards unit 4 costs.
There will be some extra costs (security, less units to share infrastructure across).
Assuming that includes a portion of the FOAK project team, that could help keep it towards unit 4 costs.
There will be some extra costs (security, less units to share infrastructure across).
November 6, 2025 at 3:26 PM
My understanding is that the plan is for OPG to be heavily involved in the SK projects.
Assuming that includes a portion of the FOAK project team, that could help keep it towards unit 4 costs.
There will be some extra costs (security, less units to share infrastructure across).
Assuming that includes a portion of the FOAK project team, that could help keep it towards unit 4 costs.
There will be some extra costs (security, less units to share infrastructure across).
The big challenge for Ontario is that with extensive access to the gas network, there is no real coat savings on the table...
Would be huge for Quebec's peak load *iff* they are cold wearer down to a rating where they avoid resistance backup at the coldest temperatures...
Would be huge for Quebec's peak load *iff* they are cold wearer down to a rating where they avoid resistance backup at the coldest temperatures...
October 31, 2025 at 8:02 PM
The big challenge for Ontario is that with extensive access to the gas network, there is no real coat savings on the table...
Would be huge for Quebec's peak load *iff* they are cold wearer down to a rating where they avoid resistance backup at the coldest temperatures...
Would be huge for Quebec's peak load *iff* they are cold wearer down to a rating where they avoid resistance backup at the coldest temperatures...
We should probably look for more EW facing vertical installs that leave rows easy to access.
Or even just EW facing vertical installs as wind breaks at field edges...
Or even just EW facing vertical installs as wind breaks at field edges...
October 20, 2025 at 12:07 PM
We should probably look for more EW facing vertical installs that leave rows easy to access.
Or even just EW facing vertical installs as wind breaks at field edges...
Or even just EW facing vertical installs as wind breaks at field edges...
Doesn't that risk decomposing it into methane?
October 17, 2025 at 8:37 AM
Doesn't that risk decomposing it into methane?
"Oh, the year was 1778!". Gesture to go next...
September 18, 2025 at 11:14 PM
"Oh, the year was 1778!". Gesture to go next...