For those ICE (thermic ??) owners, who love your cars enough...to die in it!
Here's reason #74 and #75, why you just might want to consider, buying an EV (BEV / PHEV) over an ICE vehicle.
[B]Reason #74:[/B] If you just haven't quite yet figured out, that sitting in your snowed-covered ICE vehicle, waiting for it to warm up, in a blizzard or winter storm, probably isn't the best way to understand how carbon monoxide poisoning works...it's probably to late. [i][b](...kkkk!)[/b][/i]
Jan 25th, 2025: Carbon monoxide poisoning suspected in deaths of man, 84, dog found in car stuck in snow. [URL]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/carbon-monoxide-poisoning-1.7441783[/URL]
Feb 18th, 2025: Man found dead in snow-covered car with engine running ... When emergency services arrived, they found the 57-year-old man in cardiac arrest and his vehicle was reportedly stuck in a snow bank, blocking the vehicle's exhaust pipe. His death was confirmed in hospital. [URL]https://montreal.citynews.ca/2025/02/18/montreal-man-dead-accidental-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/[/URL].
[B]Reason #75:[/B] This reason is more EV/Battery adjacent. When all you really need, is a long power cord to your EV (V2L) or a portable battery power station.
Jan 7, 2025: Why the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning grows after a winter storm. It's a silent killer responsible for more than [I][b]500 deaths every year across the country.[/b][/I] [url]https://wtop.com/health-fitness/2025/01/why-the-risk-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-grows-after-a-winter-storm/[/url]
Feb 18th, 2025: Carbon monoxide poisoning likely caused deaths of two men in ice fishing tent ... the cause of death was carbon monoxide poisoning "likely resulting from a heating source used inside the tent," [URL]https://ca.news.yahoo.com/carbon-monoxide-poisoning-likely-caused-190516022.html[/URL].
Just saying, 2-more reasons you may wanna CONSIDER an EV/Batteries...Yes!
Excellent Question!...But that's the rub with nuclear, right?
[QUOTE=SubCmdr; 2983420] You brought up many good points and laid out an excellent critical analysis to the problems with nuclear energy. I have no plans to dispute what it is you have to say about it. But, what is your solution for base input into the grid?
…
As the articles laid out the need for more energy is growing. The long game requires a look at what is actually sustainable. I don't believe that sustainability is in fossil fuels. Cold fusion has a long way to go. I still put my vote on Nuclear Power in the short term. Because it is not possible to power an electrical grid without a consistent base input of 40% of the grid output needs. [/QUOTE]
I was afraid you were gonna to ask me this question! [i][b](...kkkk!)[/b][/i] BTW, thanks for the kudos!
Truth is, I’m really enjoying the mental exercise, and have learnt a few more things along the way. But may have bitten off, more than I can chew, in my solution and its presentation….oops!
So your question really strikes at the heart of my long standing dilemma and my love/hate relationship with nuclear/SMRs. So while nuclear has its many issues (see my caveats), huge cost overruns, long build times, project delays, permitting, NIMBY…etc, when all is said and done, it does make for a compelling case, as a strong reliable and sustainable long-term clean energy solution for base load power…and therein lies the rub!
[u]Introduction to the Base Power (or Base Input) Solution:[/u]
Since I like your analysis, case study and proposal for the Dominican Republic (DR), entitled [i][b]“Power Generation in the Dominican Republic”[/b][/i] [url]ttp://www.internationalsexguide.nl/forum/showthread.php?611-General-Info&p=2956503&viewfull=1#post2956503[/url], I thought I’d kill two (2) birds with one stone and answer your question, in the style of your own case study on the DR and how I’d go about proposing a similar solution.
[u]Challenges for DR: [/u]
[b]Caveat:[/b] I don’t have expert inside knowledge of DR, or the bona fides, like you do, and have never been there, so please excuse any overreach or overstep, in areas, I may not be up to speed on, since my many of deductions on DR, will be based on Google searches and/or related to similar islands, with similar power challenges.
Is it fare to say, the DR face several energy challenges, like high electricity prices, the cost and reliance on imported fossil fuels and geo-topographical obstacles with their land and ocean geo-location, that make energy solutions for the island difficult ?
But also have several advantages, due to their geographical location as an island nation, situated in the Caribbean sunbelt, with a favorable environment for wind power.
[u]What is DR’s Current Energy Situation? Establish Baseline:[/u]
[b]Annual electricity consumption (2023)*:[/b] 22,193 GWh (Note: Your 20 billion watts is also correct and in the ballpark, as number varies +/- 2K GWh)
[b]Peak demand: [/b] 3,662 MW (megawatts)
[b]Annual Cost of Fossil Fuel in the DR:[/b] Between $2.55 - $3.47 billion { $1.84 to $2.76 billion (Oil/Coal) } + 0.71 billion (LNG) {…see notes…}
[b]DR’s Energy Mix:[/b] Heavy fossil fuels at 83.1% (oil: 12.3%, natural gas: 40.6%, coal: 30.2%) and some renewables at 16.9% (solar: 5.7%, wind: 4.3%, hydro: 6.1% and bio-fuels: 0.8%) *Note: Also in 2023, DR produced (24,580 GWh) more than they consumed (22,193 GWh).
[b]Base Load (or Baseload or Base Input) for DR:[/b] 2,197 MW (or 0.60 x 3,662 MW Peak Load).
[LIST][b]Note1: [/b] Annual Cost of Fuel Calc: Fossil fuels account for 83% DR’s electricity (22,193 GWh) in 2023, so that’s about 18,420 GWh (18.42 billion kWh). Using an average cost of 0.10–0.15 per kWh for fossil fuel-based electricity generation, equals about [i][b] $1.84 to $2.76 billion for fossil fuel electricity.[/b][/i]
The DR in 2023, imported approximately 1.47 million metric tons of LNG (Nat. Gas). The cost was about $707 million, depending on global LNG prices.[/LIST][LIST][b]Note2: [/b]The 40% SubCmdr used, seemed reasonable, but I was read countries with significant coal capacity may have a higher base load percentage, so I went with 60%.[/LIST]
[u]Recap of Nuclear Power Reactors/SMRs Pros and Cons:[/u]
Since, you’ve already made the case (and I agree), that a large nuclear plant/reactor won’t necessarily work for DR, it comes down to making the case to consider SMRs or something else?
[b]Nuclear Reactor Power Output:[/b] 1000 MW to 1600 MW (at $6K to $9K per kW )
[b]SMR Power Output:[/b] 50 MW to 300 MW (at $5K to $7K per kW )
[b]SMR Build Time Lines:[/b] For example, a 500 MW SMR build would take between 5 to 9 years.
[b]Pros: [/b] High Energy Output, Low Carbon Emissions, Energy Independence and Long-Term Cost Stability.
[b]Cons: [/b] Extremely High Costs (incl. cost overruns), Long Times for Builds (incl. large time overruns), Technical Expertise, Waste Management, Public Perception and sometimes Eco-Geo-Political Risks
[u]Base Load Calc and Cost for # of Nuclear Reactor (NR) and SMRs: [/u]
Base Load for DR is: 60% of peak load is 2,197 MW. Rounded up is 2200 MW
[b]Nuclear Reactor(s) Costs for Base Load: [/b] Most likely for a base load of 2,200 MW, consider two (2) reactors (ie. 2x 1,100 MW reactors, or 1 x 1,600 MW reactor and 1 x 600 MW reactor).
O Base Load of 2,200 MW, using NR Low-End Cost = (2,200,000kW × $6,000/kW) = $13.2 billion
O Base Load of 2,200 MW, using NR High-End Cost = (2,200,000kW × $9,000/kW) = $19.8 billion
[b]SMRs Costs for Base Load: [/b] Units of SMR can come in various sizes and apparently there is a difference in cost between a 100 MW and a 300 MW unit, both in terms of total cost and cost per kW. So while, on paper the cost calculation will be the same, the larger 300 MW units, will have a lower cost per kW and benefit from economies of scale, this will ONLY be realized during the manufacturing, construction and operation phases of implementation. So with that in mind, [b]I used 8 x 300 MW units.[/b]
The cost of SMRs is generally runs about $5-7K per kW. Since costs are rising, I’ll go with the middle of that range and $6K per kW ($6,000/kW).
O Cost per 300 MW SMR = (300,000 kW × $6,000/kW) = $1.8 billion for each
O Base Load Costs for 2200 MW, using SMRs = $14.4 billion (8 x 300MW SMRs x $1.8 billion). Note: With 8 x 300MW SMRs you get an extra 200 MW capacity.
[u]Additional Costs for NR/SMR:[/u]
[b]Site Preparation: [/b] Land acquisition, environmental studies, and site preparation can add $1–2 billion.
[b]Grid Integration: [/b] Upgrading the grid for the new load capacity, can cost $500 million to $1 billion.
[b]Regulatory and Licensing:[/b] Extensive regulatory approvals, can add another $500 million to $1 billion.
[b]Fuel/Waste Management:[/b] Initial fuel costs and long-term waste management can add yet another $1–2 billion over the reactor's lifetime.
[u] So what does all this mean and does the DR have a NR or SMR in its future? [/u]
SubCmdr, perhaps you can answer this question, better than I, if a NR or SMR could be still in DR’s future, because after crunching the numbers, it’s not as bad as I first thought. But before you answer, also take a look at the “Cautionary Tale”.
[b]Cautionary Tale:[/b] The only 3 SMRs currently in production and a fourth now being built in Argentina, went miles over budget. The SMR in China went over budget by 300%, the two (2) in Russia went over by 400% and the one in Argentina by 700% (Source: IEEFA, “SMRs: Still Too Expensive, Too Slow and Too Risky”)
The nearly $10 billion dollar SMR industry valuation, is a bit overvalued (to me) and has yet to prove themselves, in any sustainably or cost effective way, that would bring any great deal confidence, IMHO.
Look, if you cannot build “junior”, a reactor significantly smaller, less complex, with less manpower and with less materials, on time and on budget, than it’s “big brother”, doesn’t this just play into the hands of the naysayers, that say nuclear/SMRs, take too long, cost too much, too complex and are too risky?
[u]Conclusion for NRs and SMRs in DR: [/u]
Naturally, financing any big energy projects in the DR, is gonna require assistance from international partnerships (e.g., World Bank, IMF, NGOs…ect) for its critical to success. But the NR and SMR options for DR, look [b]insidiously[/b] interesting, considering DR spends like $2.55 - $3.47 billion annually, for importing 83.1% fossil fuels, in electrical energy.
However, while the SMR the industry, IMHO, isn’t mature enough yet, it still suffers from many of the afflictions of their nuclear reactor “big brothers”. For a country with DR’s economic output/GDP and access to funding, it’s far too early for them to be at the vanguard, of SMR nuclear tech.
I think, at this time the answer is still NO (for me anyways), but perhaps a tad bit softer, after crunching the numbers!
[u] So what does all this mean:[/u] So what now?
Sorry, but after doing a bit of a deep dive and establishing an energy cost baseline for DR and how to solve the base load problem, other than using NRs or SMRs, as clean energy sources, or go back to using fossil fuel plants, opened up my eyes, and caused me to take a step back and re-think and re-evaluate what I was looking to propose.
[QUOTE=SubCmdr; 2983420] That was my point, that there are only two current ways to have reliable base input into the grid: Gas Fired Plants or Nuclear Plants. Otherwise you are back to coal and although the cheapest certainly not the best for the environment. [/QUOTE]
Yes, you’re quite right! After my deep dive, I may NOT as I earlier thought, be able to provide, a solution that addresses this truth you’ve stated, about our current energy predicaments, and the lack of alternative options, we have for weaning off fossil fuel generated base load power plants.
I still have several things to checkout, but I will get back to you. Feel free, BTW, to ask questions about the numbers and proposal for NRs or SMRs in DR?
BTW, I’m still loving the brain tease!
2 photos
Living in a disinformation space? Alternate facts? No. Trump is a Lying Liar.
I don't know why even the targets of pathological liar Donald Trump's lies use silly euphemisms for his blatantly obvious and easily debunked lies like "he is living in a disinformation space" or that he is merely promoting "alternate facts. ".
Donald Trump is a pathological liar who lies about everything; The terrific economies he inherited twice, his colossal economic mess he produced and handed Biden, what he is really up to now, the multiple wars that raged all during his first so-called presidential term that he did not lift a finger to end including the full-on USA Military combat War in Afghanistan he presided over for every day of his previous so-called presidency, the War Against America over which he led his violent mob of cop-killing insurrectionts into battle on American Soil, the proven reality of Russia Russia Russia, his Trump's Pandemic Part 1, everything.
And now this:
[B]Fact check: Trumps barrage of lies about Zelensky and Ukraine.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/19/politics/fact-check-trumps-lies-about-zelensky-and-ukraine/index.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]President Donald Trump is on a lying spree about Ukraine.
In remarks to reporters on Tuesday and in a social media post on Wednesday, Trump made numerous false claims about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Russian war on Ukraine some of which [b]echoed inaccurate talking points from Russian President Vladimir Putin.[/b][/QUOTE]Of course they do. It isn't an "echo" so much as it is Putin's actual voice being thrown over to his dummy's empty-head and mouth. Russia Russia Russia wasn't nearly enough Russia for Trump. Now he's moved on to Russia Russia Russia Russia.
Has this particular interlude gone so far into blatantly obvious pathological lies that even his fellow pathological liars in the Repub Party have run out of energy to keep up with the Gish Gallop firehose of Trump Lies and tapped out for a short break?
Amazingly enough, Pious Liar Mike Pence and other Fellow Repub Liars have actually pushed back on this one. Not hard. Just a little bit. But at least it shows evidence of a heretofore utterly missing spine somewhere among them for all of them to share.
2 photos
As always, LOVE your substantiation links!
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2984399]Yeah, the whole Democratic playbook of Zelensky good and Putin bad is getting old. As for Zelensky.
He's in year 6 of his 5 year term.
Declared martial law Feb 2022 and has banned elections since then.
Banned 11 political parties.
Passed law in 2022 to censor journalists and combined all news into one gov't station.
Journalists investigating his corruption get conscripted and thrown on the front lines to die.
Zelensky's administration has card carrying Nazis in it, and one Jewish lawyer was on Tucker Carlson and saying Zelensky is throwing priests in jail. This lawyer was no Putin fan. In fact, Putin ordered his arrest. He and Trump are the only two with the balls to call out what Zelensky really is, a ruthless dictator.
So it is more like Putin bad and Zelensky is even worse.
And then there is Glenn Greenwald's take on things: There were all sorts of things that the United States knew that it could do that could provoke Russia to invade Ukraine. There were memos floating all around Washington for years saying, "These are the things that are the red lines for Moscow, not just for Putin but for everybody in Moscow, including his opponents and these are the things that if we do, we will force them to essentially invade eastern Ukraine."
The United States then proceeded to do all of them seemingly wanting Russia to invade Ukraine. In February 2022 they did that and the United States immediately announced, under the Biden administration, that we were going to fund this war, we were going to give Ukraine all the weapons and the money they needed to win.
So after had enough of the Covid scam, you Democratic douches pulled another scam to secure taxpayer money and started the Ukraine war.
If you were go to make a valid criticism of Trump, you could put to the huge budget deficits that he rung up, but Biden was fucking worse.
So while you advocated spending trillions on Covid with its 0.2% mortality and now this fucking stupid war, you kind of ignore the fact that we are $37 trillion in debt, racking up $2 trillion per year and are on the path to default. And while you Democratic douches bash Trump and Musk for cutting spending, which has to happen or it is inevitable we default on our debt, you have no plan outside of continuing to throw good money after bad.
Name one Democrat interested in cutting spending, Loony Tooms. You cannot.
If you actually brought out a candidate like Clinton who actually had a goal of a balanced budget, I might vote for them.[/QUOTE]Since you apparently could not find a single link to substantiate so much as one word of your tall tales of woe or even supporting one of Trump's typical barrage of lies about Zelenskyy, Ukraine, Putin, Russia Russia Russia Russia or anything else, I'll just go ahead and post some regarding how historically unpopular Trump is at this stage of his presidency, how much Americans disapprove of him and the job he is doing on virtually every issue, his Cabinet, his policies, his real boss, everything:
[URL]https://news.gallup.com/poll/656891/trump-job-approval-rating-congress-jumps.aspx[/URL]
[QUOTE]Trumps ratings on several issues that his administration has targeted in the first weeks of his presidency are similar to his overall rating, including on immigration (46%), foreign affairs (44%), foreign trade (42%) and the economy (42%). Meanwhile, slightly fewer Americans, 40% each, approve of the presidents handling of the situations in Ukraine and in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians, as fewer offer opinions of his performance on these two issues.[/QUOTE][URL]https://time.com/7259417/trump-poll-approval-inflation/[/URL]
[QUOTE]Gallup, which has tracked the opening approval ratings for American Presidents going back to Dwight Eisenhower, found Trumps approval rating dipped slightly from 47% in late January to 45% in mid-February. That is 15 points lower than the historical average of all other elected Presidents at this point in their first terms since 1953, according to Gallups polling.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/20/cnn-washington-post-polls-trump-approval-00205169[/URL]
[QUOTE]One reason for the erosion of support: a slight majority of respondents in both surveys said Trump has overstepped his presidential power in his attempts to reshape the federal government driven by tech billionaire Elon Musk. Many of Trumps most controversial early initiatives, including a sweeping spending freeze, have been blocked in court thus far, but the new administration has still made waves with layoffs of federal workers, cuts to federal contracts and a flood of executive orders.[/QUOTE][URL]https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/20/politics/cnn-poll-trump-approval[/URL]
[QUOTE]Trumps support also appears to be fading among some traditionally Democratic-leaning demographic groups with whom he made inroads in last years election. A January CNN poll found that 57% of 1834-year-olds, 50% of Hispanic adults and 30% of Black adults approved of the way he was handling the presidential transition. Now that Trump has taken office, his approval ratings with those groups stand at 41% among younger and Hispanic adults and 23% among Black adults.
Hispanic and Black adults are notably more likely than Whites to also say that Trump has handled the presidency in a way they did not expect (35% among Hispanic adults and 30% among Black adults compared with 20% among White adults), and to see that as a bad thing (29% among Hispanic people and 24% among Black people vs. 16% among White people).[/QUOTE]
2 photos
Yep. This happened even if his Tariffs blather remains mostly blather.
There is a reason Trump's post-election relief rally has been one of the weakest and most tepid in history. And despite him inheriting and taking over another historically successful Dem Administration's Economy that was The Envy of the World.
For the 2nd time:
[B]Dow tumbles 500 points after weaker-than-expected consumer sentiment, UnitedHealth decline.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/20/stock-market-today-live-updates.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]
[QUOTE][b]The University of Michigan consumer sentiment index fell to 64.7 in January, a decline of 10% and a steeper drop than expected as consumers feared higher inflation ahead. The 5-year inflation outlook in the survey was 3.5%, the highest since 1995.[/b]
All of this is definitely creaking at the edges, and the data is also getting softer, said Tom Fitzpatrick, managing director at R.J. OBrien and Associates. Its still early (and being early is the same as wrong), but looking at these things and the way fixed income is trading is suggesting things are not as rosy as people thought.
.................
[B]Wall Street is waking up to the potential effect of tariffs on consumers[/b]
The recent slump in stocks could be tied to [b]Wall Street seriously considering the effect of tariffs and seeing consumers changing buying patterns as a result[/b], according to Harris Financial Group managing partner Jamie Cox.
[B]Its pretty clear that markets are waking up to the consumer impact of tariffs. While the tariffs themselves may never get implemented, consumers are voicing their opinions with major changes in buying behaviors and sentiment about the prospects of their implementation,[/b] Cox told CNBC.[/QUOTE]The reason? Trump. Trump's "all the right words" and the awareness that the Trillions he added to the USA Deficit from his one and only crap economic "stimulus" legislation in the four years of his previous term along with his failed Trade War with China and his Tariffs plunged our Agriculture and Manufactoring sectors into Recessions so deep he had to issue emergency welfare checks just to keep them afloat. Adding billions more to his deficits.
Oh, and this:
[B]Trumps cuts hit red states, triggering GOP pushback.[/B]
[URL]https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-rush-soften-trump-cuts-220000057.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]Republican lawmakers are pushing back against [b]sweeping cuts to the federal government launched by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, as their downsizing crusade begins to hit GOP constituents.[/b]
A growing number of GOP lawmakers are trying to intervene with the Trump administration and are weighing legislation to circumvent the changes. But with the Department of Government Efficiency and the Office of Management and Budget moving at a rapid clip and flouting federal law to carve up the government, [b]the lawmakers face monumental challenges in getting the White House to spare their constituents from the ax.[/b][/QUOTE]Hey, I hear MAGAs are in a panic to spin new definitions for the words "Best. Month. In. Four. Years. " So they can continue to give a Thumbs Up and props to those inane Russia Russia Russia Russia bot pop-ups on the Internet.
MAGA is a NAZI movement in the United States of America!
The only way the evil prevails is for good men to do nothing.
This man did something!
[URL]https://youtu.be/lXW_BHW_wM4?si=CTC0RkIK-XjZFkuP[/URL]
[B]The Musk/Trump Co-Presidencys objective is the cement power for the billionaire class under authoritarian rule that is un-democratic and weld unchecked power![/B]
[I]Fight the Power! We have to Fight the Power that be![/I] - [B]Public Enemy[/B].
Immigration and now firing of top officials who are black!
[URL]https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pushes-out-top-us-general-nominates-retired-three-star-2025-02-22/[/URL]
Trump fired a Black Four Star General as the top military official in the United States of America and replaced him with a White 3 Star General.
Elvis2008 you are welcome to explain this to me. I think the optics look bad and shows me and the entire country what Trump really wants to do is to make The United States of America * again!
YES, the DR, can do 40%-60% base load w/Renewables...
[u]South Australia as a Case Study: [/u]
To show how DR could transition their base Load, intermittent and peaker power plants, with renewables, I used South Australia, as a case study example, to compare what they’ve done, successfully.
[u]Background Info on South Australia (SA): [/u]
The population in the state of South Australia, in 2024, is estimated to be approximately 1.8 million people. The Dominican Republic has 11.1 million people, and has approx. 6 times more people than South Australia.
South Australia, has around 984,321 sq.km (380,048 sq.mi) of land area. The Dominican Republic has around 48,671 sq.km (18,792 sq.mi) of land area. SA is approx. 20 times larger, in land area than the Dominican Republic.
South Australia is, at the frontline of the global energy transition, having transformed its energy system from 1% to over 69% renewable energy, in just over 20 years. Between June 2022 and June 2023, South Australia’s energy generation via renewables has been 72.3% compared to 36.3% nationally.
South Australia phased out coal in 2016, becoming the first mainland state to do so and hopes to have their grid as 100% renewables by 2027.
[u]South Australia’s Energy Demand Loads: [/u]
[b]SA’s Consumption & Demand[/b]
• Annual Electricity Consumption: 11,506 GWh (or 11.5 TWh)
• Typical Peak Demand: Is between Peak Demand: 3,084 MW (heat waves periods and 2,000 to 2,500 MW during cooler periods. The high was reached on Thursday 23 February 2023 @ 7:30pm).
• Base Load: Unknown, but with 73.4% renewables, it’s safe to say they have flipped the scales and now renewables run base loads and nat. gas is being as the intermittent/peak load energy source.
[b]Note #1:[/b] SA’s Annual consumption is only half that of the DR, for a population that is 6x smaller.
[b]Note #2 :[/b] SA’ Peak Demand is only about 580 MW more than the DR, for a population that is 6x smaller.
[u]South Australia’s Energy Mix: [/u]
[b]Renewables (2023) (73.4%, up from 69.0%)[/b]
• Solar: 26.5% (rooftop solar provided 17.7%, up from 16.5%, large-scale solar PV farms, providing another 8.8%. Note: over 40% of households have rooftop solar, stabilize the grid.)
• Wind: 46.9% (up from 44.6 in 2022, wind farms accounted for the largest portion to the grid, with major installations at Hornsdale, Lake Bonney, and Snowtown)
• BESS: 30% of Australia’s home batteries are in SA. Large-scale batteries like the Hornsdale Power Reserve (150 MW) and residential batteries (30,000+ installed) stabilize the grid and store excess renewable energy.
[b]Non-Renewables Sources and Imports (30%) [/b]
• Natural Gas: 25.4% (down from 29.5%, gas-fired plants are a diminishing but still critical backup)
• Interstate Imports: 2-5% (South Australia connects to the National Electricity Market (NEM) via interconnectors with Victoria (Heywood and Murraylink).
[u]Recap of the Dominican Republic’s Energy Mix: [/u]
• Annual Cost of Fossil Fuel, for generation of electricity: Between $2.55 - $3.47 billion
• Annual electricity consumption (2023)*: 22,193 GWh
• Peak demand: 3,662 MW (megawatts)
• DR’s Energy Mix: Heavy fossil fuels at 83.1% (oil: 12.3%, natural gas: 40.6%, coal: 30.2%) and some renewables at 16.9% (solar: 5.7%, wind: 4.3%, hydro: 6.1% and bio-fuels: 0.8%)
• Base Load (or Baseload or Base Input) for DR: 2,197 MW (or 0.60 x 3,662 MW Peak Load. Just a best effort guessimate)
[u]A Solution for the Dominican Republic (DR) Base Load and Beyond: [/u]
Okay, so here’s the deal, with how the DR, should be able to reach 100% renewables, for their base load electricity grid needs. My recommendation, is for DR to have like a renewables clean energy plan for the next 15-20 years.
A plan, which outlines their intentions, commitments and schedule, showing steady continual growth and build-outs of smaller manageable projects, of like [b]5% - 7% SWB worth of renewables, added annually to the grid. [/b]
Yeah, I know, not exactly the explosive, home run solution, you were perhaps looking for, but [i][b]the DR, need only take an additional 6-8 years, [/b][/i]if they followed a constant regiment of 5-7% SWB yearly implementations to reach your estimated 40% base load (or a few years later to reach 60%). Considering the DR, is already at 17% renewables.
Here is my summation of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in ranges, using approx. estimates from several sources for the years 2023 (or 2024), [i][b]in $/MWh,[/b][/i] for those energy technologies, I could find:
LCOE Ranges for Energy Technologies in 2023 (or 2024):
• Nuclear Reactor: $90–140+ (high upfront costs, delays)
• SMR: $60–90+ (early projects at upper end, targets lower with scale)
• Solar (utility-scale): $30–50 (lower with sun-rich regions, higher with storage)
• Onshore Wind: $35–55 (site-dependent, rises with transmission costs)
• Offshore Wind: $70–150+ (higher upfront/transmission costs, but improving with scale and tech)
• BESS (4-hour storage): $120–170 (lithium-ion, varies with duration/cycles)
• Pumped Hydro: $60–200 (site-specific, high upfront but low operating costs)
• LNG (gas peaker): $50–100 (import costs, volatile fuel prices, carbon costs add ~20–30/MWh)
• Coal: $60–100+ (import costs, older plants higher; carbon costs push to 80–150+)
Cost Ranges for Energy Hybrid Systems using 2023 (or 2024):
• Solar + BESS: $50–100/MWh (sun-rich regions with 4–8h storage).
• Wind + BESS: $60–120/MWh (onshore wind with 4–12h storage).
LCOE Sources for 2023 or 2024:
• International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): [url] https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Sep/IRENA_Renewable_power_generation_costs_in_2023.pdf [/url]
• Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis: [url] https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf [/url]
• U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA): [url] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf [/url]
• The International Energy Agency (IEA): [url] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lcoe-and-value-adjusted-lcoe-for-solar-pv-plus-battery-storage-coal-and-natural-gas-in-selected-regions-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2022-2030 [/url]
[u]Closing Arguments:[/u]
As I look around the world’s at those that are making the transition to a greener electrical grid, [i][b]I looked to see what is working,[/b][/i] what is cheap and less expensive, what is reliable and sustainable, and what is simple in design and complexity, requiring low maintenance and technical expertise to build, service and maintain. More often than not, it’s SOLAR, WIND and BESS (SWB), with some natural gas to round out the energy mix.
Remember it took the state of South Australia 20 years to go from 1% to 72.3% today. In a few more years, their grid, will be 100% renewables, with excess electricity, to either export it via interconnects or used to make green hydrogen.
And like SA, who have “flipped the switch” and “turn the tables” on their fossils fuels plants, being the ones that provide intermittent energy when needed (and soon to be phased out), is the right approach the DR should follow, to save millions of dollars (IMHO) and wean themselves off of fossil fuels.
So YES, I think DR, can absolutely establish and transition to 40% (or 60%) base load (and beyond), with 100% renewables. It will just take a small, but reasonable amount of time. But doable, considering DR has 6x the population of SA, but ONLY consumes twice (2x) as much annual electricity.
Note, I didn’t get into specifics, in terms of a cost/benefit analysis, but with the LCOEs provided, one can easily figure out, a half-dozen different cost scenarios. I suspect it’s going to be a mixture of SWB [i](with more WIND than SOLAR and even pumped hydro),[/i] given DR’s small land size and available space (that being 20x smaller than SA), lots of [u][i][b]offshore wind[/b][/i][/u] will need serious consideration.
Finally, I think this approach works best for DR, while the rest of the world (mostly the very rich nations), use their time and money to figure out, how viable and cost efficient, SMRs really are, as the industry becomes more mature.
