US Renewable Energy Will Surge Past Coal and Nuclear by Year's End 115
Renewables are on track to generate more power than coal in the United States this year. But the question is whether they can grow fast enough to meet the country's climate goals. From a report: Supply chain constraints and trade disputes have slowed wind and solar installations, raising questions about the United States' ability to meet the emission reductions sought by the Inflation Reduction Act. The Biden administration is banking on the landmark climate law cutting emissions by 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Many analysts think the United States will ultimately shake off the slowdown thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act's $369 billion in clean energy investments. But it may take time for the law's impact to be felt. Tax guidance needs to be finalized before developers begin plunking down money on new facilities, and companies now face headwinds in the form of higher interest rates and the looming threat of a recession.
The Inflation Reduction Act's emission reductions hinge on the country's ability to at least double the rate of renewable installations over the record levels observed in 2020 and 2021, said John Larsen, a partner at the Rhodium Group. "Every year we don't have capacity additions beyond the record is lost ground," he said. "It's going to be that much harder to make that up over time. There is a point where we don't get to the outcomes we projected because we blew the first few years of the transition." For now, U.S. renewable output is edging higher. Wind and solar output are up 18 percent through Nov. 20 compared to the same time last year and have grown 58 percent compared to 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The government energy tracker predicts that wind, solar and hydro will generate 22 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of this year. That is more than coal at 20 percent and nuclear at 19 percent.
The Inflation Reduction Act's emission reductions hinge on the country's ability to at least double the rate of renewable installations over the record levels observed in 2020 and 2021, said John Larsen, a partner at the Rhodium Group. "Every year we don't have capacity additions beyond the record is lost ground," he said. "It's going to be that much harder to make that up over time. There is a point where we don't get to the outcomes we projected because we blew the first few years of the transition." For now, U.S. renewable output is edging higher. Wind and solar output are up 18 percent through Nov. 20 compared to the same time last year and have grown 58 percent compared to 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The government energy tracker predicts that wind, solar and hydro will generate 22 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of this year. That is more than coal at 20 percent and nuclear at 19 percent.
Negative Nancy (Score:3)
But the question is whether they can grow fast enough to meet the country's climate goals.
Seriously? Can't we take a win without a negative spin? Pushing too hard could generate backlash and swing the pendulum the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure all those additional photons getting trapped in the lower atmosphere will stand down when they hear Americans are upset.
Re: (Score:3)
Because engineers are nerds. (Score:2)
This is Slashdot, EVERYTHING has a negative spin.
That's because engineers are nerds, and slashdot includes news for them.
Engineers always look at the "gotchas" - to try to head off disasster.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking the small win you never know if you will win the war. Celebrate the battle but focus on the long game.
My real concern though is if we can figure out economic models that work for utilities if their customers are a primary source of generation. To me, that is the ultimate game because while individual customers might be able to offset costs we do actually need to avoid shifting them to customers that can't, like renters. I think there is a good mutualistic solution out there, but don't know what it is
Re: (Score:3)
Concern about backlash is not a consideration these days. That kind of thinking leads to compromise, and few think deeply enough to find value in that anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
If wind and solar are so great, why would there be any backlash? Nobody has complained about coal plants being replaced by natural gas turbines, for example. Except for people for whom CO2 emissions are the only factor. For people that just want affordable and reliable power, it was always a win/win. If wind and solar provide that too, there will be no backlash.
And if renewables are as cheap as people are saying they are now, rates won't go up either, and investors will make money. What's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing coal plants with naural gas is great. (Score:2)
Nobody has complained about coal plants being replaced by natural gas turbines, for example. Except for people for whom CO2 emissions are the only factor.
Not even them, if they have a clue about actual engineering.
Of all the fossil fuels, coal produces the most CO2 for a given amount of heat energy output, natural gas the least. If you keep the leaks down you're FAR ahead on the "reduce greenhouse effect from waste gasses" front by replacing coal generation infrastructure with gas. (Also: Gas turbine pea
Only due to government intervention (Score:1, Troll)
The only reason renewables are surging is because of insane laws against coal use and restrictions on building and repairing oil refineries.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And Diablo Canyon will only stay open because of government cash, what's your point? https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re:Only due to government intervention (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And what would that "scheme" be exactly?
You mean requiring Diablo Canyon to meet current seismic and water quality standards, which will cost $1 billion? Those dastards! How dare they require environmentally safe plant operation! That money will need to be spent to renew the licenses which expire in 2024-2025.
The reason that PG&E gives for not spending the money to renew the licenses is that since 2010 a large portion of consumers in California have come to purchase power through local energy purchasing
Re:Only due to government intervention (Score:4, Insightful)
And what would that "scheme" be exactly?
You mean requiring Diablo Canyon to meet current seismic and water quality standards, which will cost $1 billion?
The scheme was requiring them to build a $14 billion dollar water cooling system in order to save a minuscule amount of fish eggs. A 30 million dollar artificial reef would accomplish that. Newsom when he was head of the State Land commission gave them an ultimatum-shutdown in 2024 or be shutdown now. Diablo already exceeds seismic and water quality standards.
PG&E spent a lot money on the shutdown and stopped spending money on upgrades and maintenance. They also have not started the work towards renewing their NRC license because of the scheme.
Just for the record Diablo canyon sells electricity at a much lower rate than the average costs in California. So communities that refuse to buy nuclear are fucking stupid in addition to being evil
At this point given the reality of climate change, if you opposing nuclear energy, you are an evil scumbag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Coal and oil get a lot of subsidies as well. Arguably as much as renewables, if not more, because they are deemed critical to US infrastructure.
Re: Only due to government intervention (Score:2)
The only reason coal and oil have been profitable for the last couple decades, if not longer, has been all the subsidies and government assistance it receives. If you removed all government aid from all energy sources, renewables would be far ahead.
The biggest assistance coal/oil get is from socialist laws that let them shift a lot of their costs onto everyone else. In a free market, coal makes no sense, because they'd be required to cover their own costs completely on their own, without the government soci
Re: (Score:2)
That all depends on how to calculate the socialized costs. For example, it gets expensive if you include hypothesized flooding of 50% of NYC in 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because continuing coal use and increasing oil use isn't short-sighted and profoundly stupid at all.
Since when are there restrictions against repairing oil refineries? [citation needed]
Renewable means burning trees and tires (Score:1, Troll)
This is far worse for the environment that burning natural gas, and much much worse than using nuclear.
Damn (Score:2)
Isn't Hydro considered 'renewable' ?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it would be if the U.S. wasn't under a near coast-to-coast drought. You'd better hope this isn't the new normal or you can kiss hydro-power goodbye. On the bright side, in 10 years with a bit-o-luck Florida will be under water from rising oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, it generally is NOT. Apparently, the wrong people would make money from it.
Re: Damn (Score:2)
âoe Renewable Portfolio Standardsâ (RPS) for electricity generation. Since 1994, some 30 states (and hundreds of cities) have adopted binding RPSs with a majority passing such legislation since in 2004. Seven other states have adopted non-binding RPS âoegoals.â These standards call for power providers in some states to increase their use of renewable energy by as much as 33% by 2025.
The common theme among these standards: hydroelectric power does not count as a renewable energy resource.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Hydro considered 'renewable' ?
No, hydro is not considered "renewable" by many "green" energy advocates. It is not even considered "green" by many in government.
There was a bill in Arizona that wanted to force utilities into lowering CO2 emissions, environmental impact, pollution, or something. The only energy sources that met this definition was wind and solar. The opponents fought the bill because the bill made no provision for the cost of energy. On top of that the bill did not consider hydro or nuclear as meeting this definition
"Many analysts" are full of shit (Score:2)
This statement is complete bullshit: "Many analysts think the United States will ultimately shake off the slowdown thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act's $369 billion in clean energy investments"
From the US Energy Information Administration (Score:2)
U.S. utility-scale electricity generation by source, amount, and share of total in 2021
Data as of November 2022
Fossil Fuels: 61% (of which coal is 21.9%)
Nuclear 18.9%
Renewables: 19.8% (of which 6.1% is hydro which isn't going to increase much)
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... [eia.gov]
Renewables are creeping up, that's good, but it's just a part of the energy mix.
This would work (Score:2)
This will work IF we have enough storage capacity to get us through those days without enough sunshine and / or wind.
The problem with storage capacity is we're still far too reliant on China atm for pretty much everything.
I don't need to remind you all how problematic that will be if / when China decides to move on Taiwan and the US gets involved.
( Tip: Once a trade partner becomes your enemy, you can bet we're not going to be receiving goods from them for a while. . . . )
Before we give up the ghost on Nuc
Nope. Will not happen. (Score:2)
Re:At night with no wind? (Score:4, Informative)
It's always windy somewhere. And power usage is generally higher during day compared to night.
Re:At night with no wind? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's always windy somewhere.
In California, "Peak Hours" are 4pm to 9pm.
In Florida, it's whenever DeSantis or Trump are at a podium. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, from about sunset until the wind picks up is when there's little supply, also lots of demand because people are arriving home and turning on their air conditioners.
California has been busy building a virtual power plant [slashdot.org] of Tesla Powerwall owners who feed energy back into the grid at critical times and are generously rewarded in return. In the future, I expect this to be extended to bidirectional electric car chargers, so as the state adds more PowerWalls and
Re:In California (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop pushing false narratives. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and go into San Francisco quite often, I've NEVER seen anyone defecating on the streets. But hey you want to know about corruption -- what about Florida, where the lying governor is pushing the false narrative that his state is safe when it has, per capita, more murders that California. It also has, per capita, more drug overdose deaths. He keeps comparing murders by numbers without accounting for the fact that California has more people than Florida, of course it will have more murders. He knows Republicans are bad in analytical logic so he gets away with his false narrative.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:In California (Score:4, Insightful)
Read the subject of your own comment, says "In California." Have to respond to libel/slander.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In California (Score:5, Informative)
Also, what the hell do you mean nobody can afford the median home in California? If this state sucked, then the median home price would be low. The price is high because people don't want to sell their home. And those that do wanna sell it are able to sell it at the "high" price because that's what people are willing and able to pay. Anyway, what YOU'RE saying is that people rather live homeless in California than in a mansion in a red state.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Prop 13! By lowering property tax rates in real, inflation-adjusted dollars the longer people hold onto their homes, you're basically paying them not to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead we should force people out of their homes by forcing them to pay exorbitant rents to the state for the privilege of living.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's what happens in the other 49 states, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It can.
I'm planning on retiring soon. When I do, and I don't downsize, real estate property taxes will be my biggest single expense (unless I have a serious medical emergency)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, please spare us lies that any asshole can disprove with a five second Google Search. [google.com] Secondly, the outrageous cost of housing in California is a well known issue and has been for decades. [fortune.com]"
People really do come onto this fucking website and say whatever bullshit they want.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
> It's always windy somewhere.
How is that helpful? If it's not windy where you need it, that wind does you no good.
I am sure it's always sunny somewhere, but if it's not sunny over your solar panels, that sunshine is not helping you generate electricity.
Re:At night with no wind? (Score:5, Informative)
Electricity is being transported on hundreds of kilometers. If it's not windy where you need it, you can use a longer cable to get electricity from further away.
Also, as long as the total generation is less than say, 50% wind, it's a non-issue. Wind turbines (and solar) can complement the other electricity sources just fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That argument would work a lot better if the environmentalists were not fighting desperately against every new transmission line.
Also, take the nameplate power and divide by 3 on a good day, divide by 5 yesterday, it was cloudy.
The BPA has data for wind and solar at five minute intervals.
See items 5 and 6..
https://transmission.bpa.gov/B... [bpa.gov]
Solar doesn't get its own line on the plot yet, it wouldn't be visible.
https://transmission.bpa.gov/b... [bpa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
The Bonneville Power Administration lists 42 different hydroelectric facilities on their data, and some of those are multi-gigawatt dams on the Columbia such as Grand Coulee (6800 MW), Chief Joseph (2600 MW), McNary (2500 MW) Bonneville (1200 MW), The Dalles (2000 MW), and John Day (2500 MW). Even the Columbia Nuclear Generating Station only represents ~4.3% of the energy mix that BPA manages, and that's a 1200MWe boiling water reactor.
Knowing that BPA's region is the Pacific Northwest, having solar show u
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that even on a rainy day in the Pacific Northwest, solar panels still are able to generate something like 75% of the power they do on a sunny day. The real problem is snow, which will pretty much kill generation capacity, but unless your up in the mountains in Washington or Oregon, the amount of snowfall per year is pretty nominal these days. What it may mean is you have to add a few more panels to an array to account for cloudier days.
I mean, it's not like us folks up in the West Coast
Re: (Score:3)
For what it's worth, I have solar panels on my roof, in Portland.
It rained basically all day yesterday, and I generated 2.6kWh of solar power. Last Friday when it was sunny but cold, I generated 14kWh of solar power.
For reference, when sunny and warm on Friday, 30 September I generated 24.7kWh.
There's a lot less hours of sun this time of year here, and a lot more clouds and rain. It makes a difference, but it's not like I'm generating nothing.
Re:At night with no wind? (Score:4, Informative)
That argument would work a lot better if the environmentalists were not fighting desperately against every new transmission line.
I'd mod you up if I had not already posted. Huge swaths of self-described "environmentalists" hate transmission lines.
https://financialpost.com/comm... [financialpost.com]
https://www.abc.net.au/news/ru... [abc.net.au]
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2... [lasvegassun.com]
https://www.euractiv.com/secti... [euractiv.com]
https://globalnews.ca/news/610... [globalnews.ca]
https://www.pennlive.com/news/... [pennlive.com]
Probably just as many of these people as those who hate nuclear. And yeah, many hate hydroelectric power too.
I've long since quit caring. They can fight it out amongst themselves, we'll watch simply for entertainment value. I'm going to continue to enjoy my life and not give the entire subject a second thought.
Re: (Score:2)
> https://financialpost.com/comm [financialpost.com]...
"But opponents, supported by U.S. power company NextEra which has competing generating projects in New England..."
Hmmm yes, "Environmentalists"
>https://lasvegassun.com/news/2...
The concern about fires is legitimate, but what needs to be explained is the problem is form heavily loaded power lines - a problem that could be rectified by building more power lines.
The others seem to be issues encroaching on land, either farm or tribal, not really environmental.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm yes, "Environmentalists"
Yes, that is how the see themselves, no matter who is influencing them. Same as with nuclear, and its own competing interests. And Hydro. And everything else that makes us civilized.
The others seem to be issues encroaching on land, either farm or tribal, not really environmental.
They think it is (see above). You can dismiss it no true Scotsman style, but it still won't get more power lines built. Tribalism is actually the perfect structure for agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always windy somewhere.
But is it windy (or windy enough) where you installed the wind turbines?
And power usage is generally higher during day compared to night.
...but nighttime (or morning/evening when there is little sunlight) still has power usage. California literally had to send out a text message begging people to set their air-conditioners to a higher temperature in the evening. That was the only thing that saved us from blackouts.
Re: (Score:2)
But is it windy (or windy enough) where you installed the wind turbines?
Aha! That's the answer! Put all the wind turbines on gigantic trolleys, so they can race around the country to wherever there IS wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always windy somewhere. And power usage is generally higher during day compared to night.
One mistake I see constantly being made is addressing the world as it is rather than the world as it will be. In a future where hydrocarbons are not being burned and everyone is using electric heating usage won't be much different during the night during winter season.
The basic problem with it's always windy somewhere or it's always sunny somewhere is the question of how many multiplies of the capacity of installed windmills and panels will be required to deliver reliable energy on demand not simply when
Re: (Score:2)
It's always windy somewhere. And power usage is generally higher during day compared to night.
One mistake I see constantly being made is addressing the world as it is rather than the world as it will be. In a future where hydrocarbons are not being burned and everyone is using electric heating usage won't be much different during the night during winter season.
In hot climates night usage is much lower because AC doesn't need to work as hard.
I cold climates, such as where I live, peak usage is early morning and evening, when people shower and cook, and it is colder.
The basic problem with it's always windy somewhere or it's always sunny somewhere is the question of how many multiplies of the capacity of installed windmills and panels will be required to deliver reliable energy on demand not simply when it is convenient? Is this a reasonable answer? Without a substantial mix of supply able to be called up on demand the answer is heck no.
We do need a mix. But wind and solar are currently so low that it is a non-issue. When we get to over 60% combined wind and solar, then it might be a problem.
Hydro is the best for balancing the load, as you can easily turn on and off turbines (raise reservoir level when demand is low). Nuclear is always
Re: (Score:2)
One mistake I see constantly being made is addressing the world as it is rather than the world as it will be. In a future where hydrocarbons are not being burned and everyone is using electric heating usage won't be much different during the night during winter season.
In hot climates night usage is much lower because AC doesn't need to work as hard.
I cold climates, such as where I live, peak usage is early morning and evening, when people shower and cook, and it is colder.
Again the point that seems to be continuously ignored is today's usage patterns are not relevant to the future. The investments in renewables are working towards a goal. What should be relevant to that goal is the end state (what you expect to achieve) not present day reality that looks nothing like the desired end state.
We do need a mix. But wind and solar are currently so low that it is a non-issue.
Today isn't the issue.
When we get to over 60% combined wind and solar, then it might be a problem.
Hydro is the best for balancing the load
Not enough hydro potential.
Nuclear is always operating, it's not easily turned on/off
Nuclear production is controllable on the scale of minutes to hours depending on reactor design. This is where prediction and energy buff
Re: (Score:2)
Is the goal preventing the burning of hydrocarbons or is it something else?
It is something else: to reduce man-made climate change, and air pollution in general, since it's cheaper overall for the world population than doing nothing.
And one of the first thing to do to achieve that is to shutdown coal and replace it by renewable, gas and nuclear.
If we could capture 95% of the carbon emissions (and ideally other pollutants) of coal power plants, they could become interesting again, so the problem is not burning hydrocarbons itself.
Re: (Score:2)
It is something else: to reduce man-made climate change, and air pollution in general, since it's cheaper overall for the world population than doing nothing.
And one of the first thing to do to achieve that is to shutdown coal and replace it by renewable, gas and nuclear.
Can you put a number on it or provide a citation to relevant research? Reduce it by what exactly?
Paris goals require complete decarburization of electrical infrastructure and massive offloading of non-electrical hydrocarbon burning activities to the grid. Are they wrong?
If we could capture 95% of the carbon emissions (and ideally other pollutants) of coal power plants, they could become interesting again, so the problem is not burning hydrocarbons itself.
Betting on vaporware is a dangerous proposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you put a number on it or provide a citation to relevant research?
A number on what?
It is well known that coal is the most carbon intenstive way of producing electricity.
Paris goals require complete decarburization of electrical infrastructure and massive offloading of non-electrical hydrocarbon burning activities to the grid. Are they wrong?
Paris goals are non-binding targets. They are neither "right" or "wrong". And also even if the targets were binding, they do not force any means to acheive these goals.
Betting on vaporware is a dangerous proposition.
I'm not saying I am betting on carbon capture. I'm just answering the question which was "Is the goal preventing the burning of hydrocarbons or is it something else?"
Re: (Score:2)
Hitting the market right now: https://youtu.be/oqqnDPVwHJE [youtu.be]
And developed with a big investment from Bill Gates.
Re:At night with no wind? (Score:5, Funny)
Well you really got us there. Time to pack everything up and go back to coal!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Where is the -1 gibberish mod when you need it? Was this written by some sort of obscure word AI?
Re:At night with no wind? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't that nuclear is bad, the problem is that it's incredibly expensive. In the long run battery technology is probably the more feasible investment than nuclear for insuring baseload.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that nuclear is bad, the problem is that it's incredibly expensive. In the long run battery technology is probably the more feasible investment than nuclear for insuring baseload.
I'm a fan of Nuclear power, but that is true. Nuclear power requires both a huge capital expenditure to set up and to be planned decades in advance. A wind/solar/battery farm requires far less of both.
Re: At night with no wind? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well shit, I can't believe nobody thought of those problems until YOU came along!
Now only if we had some way of storing excess power that was generated when it wasn't needed, so it could be used when generation falls off. It would kind of be like how we build up a bunch of water behind a dam, and then let the water run through turbines at a metered rate so we can still generate hydroelectric power when it's not raining...
You know what? Maybe we just use excess power to pump a bunch of water behind a hydro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah, that would be entirely too complex. Let's just keep burning coal.
That's about right, the complexities of producing energy and then storing it up for later is quite complex. We don'd need to store energy in dams or batteries when we have energy stored as fuel.
Do you understand what is also a fuel besides coal? Uranium. Thorium is more abundant than uranium and is also promising as a fuel. Because ramping power up and down rapidly in a fission reactor is a bit difficult we are seeing work done on thermal energy storage systems for that short term energy storage so we c
Re: (Score:2)
Why do all you nuclear nutters think that someone in favor of renewables means they are against nuclear?
Maybe people were lead to think you are opposed to nuclear power because the best option you came up with to keep the lights on when the wind isn't blowing and the sun not shining is something that doesn't produce any electricity. Energy storage is a net loss on energy because there is loss in any process. If you aren't opposed to nuclear power then why did you fail to mention it as an option? There is a trend among those that support renewable energy and storage being opposed to nuclear fission, so if y
Re: (Score:2)
To suggest energy storage as a solution rather than nuclear fission is to sound like someone opposed to nuclear fission.
So in a conversation focused on renewable energy and specifically focused on the potential production shortfalls of renewable energy that has already been solved and can be implemented at existing hydroelectric plants immediately causes you to jump to "we need to build nuclear power", and you don't see how that makes you a "nuclear nutter"?
For the record, the only problem I have with nuclear power is the insane cost and amount of time it takes to get a plant operational - you know, those facts you continual
Re: (Score:3)
1)The are experimental solar panels that are designed to store up heat during the day and use sterling engines to harvest about 5% of their day output at night.
2) There are these things called batteries. That includes electrical, physical (pumped hydro where you pump water up hill with solar/wind then get hydro at night), and thermal (heat up a mass with solar then use that as power source at night.).
3) There are these things called tidal and geothermal that work 24/7, 365 days a year.
4) Fossil fuels have
Re: (Score:2)
1)The are experimental solar panels that are designed to store up heat during the day and use sterling engines to harvest about 5% of their day output at night.
Absolutely and solar panels can also harvest energy that bounces off the moon and from headlights of vehicles driving nearby.
2) There are these things called batteries.
With current technology batteries can only feasibly buffer any substantive percentage of demand for a short duration. They are useless against weather systems and seasonal variation.
3) There are these things called tidal and geothermal that work 24/7, 365 days a year.
Hey if it works for Iceland why not the world?
4) Fossil fuels have their own issues, funny how the transportation, refining, leaks, and pollution issues are all acceptable to you, but the few weaknesses of the renewables get blown out of important.
The intermittency of renewables (esp wind and solar) is a major problem that can't be ignored. These are awesome technologies yet insufficient by themselves
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear plants don't shut down when it is too hot?
https://www.theguardian.com/ne... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power doesn't reduce power when it's hot?
https://www.yahoo.com/video/th... [yahoo.com]
We have nuclear power plants built in far hotter places than Finland and they can keep going. This means they can handle the heat when built to do so. Do we give up on windmills because we saw some frozen up in Texas? Or do we put in heaters and antifreeze for the future like we do for windmills in Minnesota? Everyone involved realizes they screwed up on not building those nuclear power plants to handle the rare heat waves.
Re: At night with no wind? (Score:2)
Biggest problem in texas was actually gas pumps to power stations turning off to save power.
This meant all the power stations failed due to lack of grid.
-
My biggest problem with nuclear is actually a lack of uranium for any increase in nuclear.
Yes thorium could solve this issue but this could require a new design and costly refits of the old ones.
Re: At night with no wind? (Score:4, Insightful)
Biggest problem in texas was actually gas pumps to power stations turning off to save power.
That makes no sense, who would shut off the pumps supplying fuel to the power stations to save power? Texas had natural gas lines freeze up because the lines were not insulated from the cold and did not have driers/dehumidifiers to get the water out of the lines, meaning they iced up and could no longer carry fuel. This loss of power in places lead to pumping stations being unable to pump fuel for other stations.
This meant all the power stations failed due to lack of grid.
Not all the power stations failed.
My biggest problem with nuclear is actually a lack of uranium for any increase in nuclear.
If I claimed my biggest problem with solar power was a lack of silicon for any increase in future capacity then I'd have people pile on that there's plenty of silicon to mine. The same would happen if I claimed there was a lack of lithium and cobalt for batteries. There's no shortage of fuel for nuclear power because we have piles of plutonium and uranium for producing mixed oxide fuel. Any shortage of uranium fuel is a construct of Congress trying to destroy fuel. We have members of Congress working hard to render stockpiles of enriched fuel worthless from "down blending". Down blending enriched fuel is a process of mixing enriched uranium with depleted uranium and/or uranium waste to make it very expensive to enrich back into useful fuel. This is clearly an effort by elected officials in Congress to create an energy shortage in the USA. If this concerns you then perhaps you should contact members of Congress and tell them to stop trying to create an energy shortage.
Yes thorium could solve this issue but this could require a new design and costly refits of the old ones.
We don't need new designs and costly refits to use thorium fuel. We had tests of plutonium-thorium mixed oxide fuel in existing reactors decades ago. Any new reactor will be tested for thorium fuel from the start because of people like yourself bringing up such bullshit. It is possible to construct new reactors that can use natural uranium as fuel, meaning we would not need to enrich the uranium ore before it is suitable as fuel. If there is a shortage of fuel for nuclear power then it is because we created one from government policies. Just don't create a fuel shortage.
We are going to see more nuclear power plants in Texas, the USA, and the rest of the world because we are running out of options and the opponents are running out of excuses.
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest problem in texas was actually gas pumps to power stations turning off to save power.
That makes no sense, who would shut off the pumps supplying fuel to the power stations to save power? Texas had natural gas lines freeze up because the lines were not insulated from the cold and did not have driers/dehumidifiers to get the water out of the lines, meaning they iced up and could no longer carry fuel. This loss of power in places lead to pumping stations being unable to pump fuel for other stations.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/m... [wfaa.com]
Private companies seeing free money and the grid operators d
Re: (Score:2)
Worst case scenario we have 25 years to go from 10% nuclear power on the grid to 100% nuclear power on the grid. That sounds workable.
The average build time for a nuclear power plant is somewhere around 7 to 8 years, with some built in as little as 3 years, and some more that 30 years. The required skills and materials for constructing these power plants already exist, and will only grow as construction begins and more experience is gained. As fuel demand rises so will fuel prices. This increase in pric
Re: (Score:2)
you store the extra in batteries for the night
Who pays for these batteries? "Not I, [wikipedia.org]" said the cat. "Not I," said the rat. ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
But renewables are winning without tax breaks nowadays. The growth is based on cold, hardheade
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, even the black guy married to a white woman disapproves of interracial marriage.
Your statement seems to contradict itself. A guy that is in an interracial marriage by definition can't disapprove of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Until... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, was it OK when we were getting 'liberal' interpretations of the Constitution? I'm not saying there is no bias in the Supreme Court (because, you know, people), but you seem to be taking their rulings personally (Thomas HATES interracial marriage!), when there are actual LEGAL reasons that they have thrown out certain 'Constitutional Rights'. Roe v. Wade was always built on shaky legal foundations. Not only is their no mention of abortion, there is no mention of privacy, which is where the right to abo
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement seems to contradict itself. A guy that is in an interracial marriage by definition can't disapprove of it.
Self-hatred is an actual thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Never doubt the ability for people to compartmentalize, and create cognitive exceptions for their own conduct while condemning it in others. People are not binary, and we all have the wiring to hold two conflicting views at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Never doubt the ability for people to compartmentalize, and create cognitive exceptions for their own conduct while condemning it in others. People are not binary, and we all have the wiring to hold two conflicting views at the same time.
Indeed. "Do as I say not as I do" seems to be the prevailing attitude of the vast majority of people everywhere these days. IMHO many more people need to spend more time trying to enjoy their own lives rather than obsessing over what other people are doing. Sadly we still have to put up with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrisy is hardly a new feature of the human condition. To some extent we all do it. Oddly enough, we seem to hold public figures to a much higher standard than we ever hold ourselves, and the more hypocritical we are, the more outrage we seem to express when some public figure like a politician or celebrity. We seem to feel we can shed any kind of empathy or understanding, particularly when it's someone we perceive as an opponent, because by the same token, if it's someone in our own "tribe", we can give
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until the real bills start to come in, when insurers just abandon all kinds of markets, when disaster recovery costs start hitting state houses and Congress. Magical thinking is going to hit a brick wall, and it looks like it's going to hit it hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor all of us. I'm deep into renewables and electric cars. Why? Because it will be good for America to eventually be able to ignore those-who-hate-us and from whom we buy oil, so we can leave them alone with their hate, and enjoy life via solar and wind power and maybe eventually ocean wave and geothermal power if we ever learn to dig deep enough to make the latter feasible even in ice and snow areas of the globe. Electric is the way to go, and not burning anything is the way to go electric.