To prisoner6655321: the loss on tx lines does vary a lot. I’m no authority in general, the markets that I’ve participated in are mostly cold weather markets and on lines that are well maintained. The loss factors have ranged from 4-7+ percent per MW, per CA (Control Area), this number depends on the size of the CA. However, if you are moving energy across several control areas, you can double count the losses and get a big number. I disagree with this counting, except from an accounting perspective. The math on losses is quite simple, because the power is always being lost on the lines, it’s just a matter of assigning who pays for it.
Power marketers have to purchase extra energy so that it can be ‘lost’ along the line and the right amounts actually arrive at the sink and the system stays balanced. Not to be confused with tx fees, which are also charged on a percentage of MW getting delivered (to pay for them lines), and congestion penalties. If you visit ISO websites (Independent System Operators) you can usually find TX loss percentages. Sadly most of the sites are huge and confusing, but it’s public info in most cases.
I’m not a nuke marketer, just coal and gas, sorry. I defer to Antracite, haha.
Yes gas is ‘cleaner’ in relative terms. It’s also easier to extract and transport. Course from an impact viewpoint, it’s still drillholes everywhere, pipes, refineries, gas hubs, etc. all over the countryside. I think that beats dredging coal out of a sunken mountainside and putting it into a gigantic pit in the earth near to the coal plant. There are many stages to both processes that we can explore, I maintain that coal beats gas in most categories for severity of environmental impact, but then again, gas plants have breakeven costs that can range from 3-10x more expensive than coal.