Thank you coal!

[HI54UNI]

If someone truly believes in climate change they have to support nuclear. There's no way around it. At 7:00 this morning wind was producing less than 25% of it's nameplate and there was no solar. So either you build 4 times more wind and hope you build it in the right place so there's enough wind energy when you need it or you will be short. Plus you would have the expense of all the transmission lines to the middle of nowhere to get to where the wind turbines will be built. And barring some technological breakthrough storage is not going to meet our needs anytime in the near future. So that only leaves nuclear. And the legal, regulatory, and market hurdles make it uneconomic for any company to build nuclear.

So like most things that ultimately involve our federal government - everybody complains but nothing gets done.

Have you heard about the fiasco with building a nuclear power station in SC? It's not due to it being nuclear, it was mis-management, above all else.

https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/artic ... -timeline/


SCE&G is notoriously expensive..and the costs are only going up.

I've read about it but didn't know about all various things going on in the legislature. When they made the initial decision to do the project is was probably the right thing to do. About 2010 the energy market changed dramatically and usage flatlined or decreased. When they found out about the delay in 2014 and extra $1.2 billion in cost they should have took their lumps then and ended it.

[HI54UNI]

If someone truly believes in climate change they have to support nuclear. There's no way around it. At 7:00 this morning wind was producing less than 25% of it's nameplate and there was no solar. So either you build 4 times more wind and hope you build it in the right place so there's enough wind energy when you need it or you will be short. Plus you would have the expense of all the transmission lines to the middle of nowhere to get to where the wind turbines will be built. And barring some technological breakthrough storage is not going to meet our needs anytime in the near future. So that only leaves nuclear. And the legal, regulatory, and market hurdles make it uneconomic for any company to build nuclear.

So like most things that ultimately involve our federal government - everybody complains but nothing gets done.

Honest question-is there any way to substantially reduce the regulatory burden of getting a new plant up and running without compromising safety?

My nuclear experience is limited but some of the security rules are overboard, storing waste material at each individual site rather than getting a Yucca Mountain/one site for storage (another security issue), overzealous rules on training/safety (I can give a couple examples but I don't want a JSO long post. Let me know if you want to hear them ) All of these are a fine line because you want to make sure the public is safe. I also think they need to look at the small modular reactors as they are more manageable, have a standardized design, and should have less safety issues.

A bigger issue is the way plants operate and the way our energy markets are designed. Long story short the tax credit on wind means that power prices can be a negative 2.2 cents and wind turbine owners still make money. That's why Warren Buffet is building thousands of them. A nuke plant can't turn off or back down so when the power market goes below cost they lose money. As more wind gets built the problem gets worse as there are more hours the prices are below cost. That's why some states, like Illinois, are adding subsidies to keep nuke plants running and in other states nuke plants are closing. Without a change to the markets no amount of reduced risk is going to make a nuclear plant viable.

[SDHornet]

Honest question-is there any way to substantially reduce the regulatory burden of getting a new plant up and running without compromising safety?

My nuclear experience is limited but some of the security rules are overboard, storing waste material at each individual site rather than getting a Yucca Mountain/one site for storage (another security issue), overzealous rules on training/safety (I can give a couple examples but I don't want a JSO long post. Let me know if you want to hear them ) All of these are a fine line because you want to make sure the public is safe. I also think they need to look at the small modular reactors as they are more manageable, have a standardized design, and should have less safety issues.

A bigger issue is the way plants operate and the way our energy markets are designed. Long story short the tax credit on wind means that power prices can be a negative 2.2 cents and wind turbine owners still make money. That's why Warren Buffet is building thousands of them. A nuke plant can't turn off or back down so when the power market goes below cost they lose money. As more wind gets built the problem gets worse as there are more hours the prices are below cost. That's why some states, like Illinois, are adding subsidies to keep nuke plants running and in other states nuke plants are closing. Without a change to the markets no amount of reduced risk is going to make a nuclear plant viable.

So what you are saying is to just nationalize the energy market...like say Venezuela, and everything will be rain bows and unicorns.

[HI54UNI]

Why fuel diversity in our electricity supply is important.

[CAA Flagship]

Why fuel diversity in our electricity supply is important.

No. That just means you need more windmills and more batteries to span the less windy periods.

[CAA Flagship]

If only the wind from coal producing states would stop blowing toward New England.

That's Canada.

[HI54UNI]

California is having rolling black outs due to extreme heat and lack of sufficient generation capacity to meet demand. In our part of the Midwest grid coal is providing 40% of the energy needed, natural gas 44%, hydro 5%, wind 5%, nuclear 5%, and other 1%. So fossil fuels are keeping 84% of the lights and A/C on.

Wind is only producing about 10% of it's available generation capacity due to lack of wind.

For our local generation that we own - coal and natural gas both running at 100% output. Wind output is zero.

[93henfan]

California is having rolling black outs due to extreme heat and lack of sufficient generation capacity to meet demand. In our part of the Midwest grid coal is providing 40% of the energy needed, natural gas 44%, hydro 5%, wind 5%, nuclear 5%, and other 1%. So fossil fuels are keeping 84% of the lights and A/C on.

Wind is only producing about 10% of it's available generation capacity due to lack of wind.

For our local generation that we own - coal and natural gas both running at 100% output. Wind output is zero.

Fucking Iowa fascists!

[BDKJMU]

California is having rolling black outs due to extreme heat and lack of sufficient generation capacity to meet demand. In our part of the Midwest grid coal is providing 40% of the energy needed, natural gas 44%, hydro 5%, wind 5%, nuclear 5%, and other 1%. So fossil fuels are keeping 84% of the lights and A/C on.

Wind is only producing about 10% of it's available generation capacity due to lack of wind.

For our local generation that we own - coal and natural gas both running at 100% output. Wind output is zero.

CA has shut down nat gas and nuclear plants over the last decade +, with a 100% renewalble goal by 2045. Solar and wind can’t deal with the demamd in a heat wave, esp when the sun isn’t shining & the wind isn’t blowing, despite usage being 10% less than it otherwise would be due to work from home. So now they have rolling blackouts. The politician’s response: We need people to turn their thermostats up 4 degrees. Morons.

This is what Biden/Harris want to bring to all of America with their new Green Deal.

[UNI88]

Four energy solutions that are smarter than the disastrous Green New Deal

“You still need other low-carbon sources to complete the clean energy lineup,” says that study’s co-author, Jesse Jenkins, an energy systems engineer and assistant professor at Princeton University.
...
Too many climate activists advocate for limiting economic growth and reducing our consumption. But with the right mix of energy technologies we can cut our emissions while also developing vital new industries.

That’s why continued research into nuclear, CCS, hydrogen — and, yes, wind and solar, too — is so vital. If fusion power succeeds as well, that will simply supercharge our progress.

We don’t need to choose between environmental responsibility and economic growth. Why not have both?

[Ivytalk]

Four energy solutions that are smarter than the disastrous Green New Deal

“You still need other low-carbon sources to complete the clean energy lineup,” says that study’s co-author, Jesse Jenkins, an energy systems engineer and assistant professor at Princeton University.
...
Too many climate activists advocate for limiting economic growth and reducing our consumption. But with the right mix of energy technologies we can cut our emissions while also developing vital new industries.

That’s why continued research into nuclear, CCS, hydrogen — and, yes, wind and solar, too — is so vital. If fusion power succeeds as well, that will simply supercharge our progress.

We don’t need to choose between environmental responsibility and economic growth. Why not have both?

[HI54UNI]

Four energy solutions that are smarter than the disastrous Green New Deal

“You still need other low-carbon sources to complete the clean energy lineup,” says that study’s co-author, Jesse Jenkins, an energy systems engineer and assistant professor at Princeton University.
...
Too many climate activists advocate for limiting economic growth and reducing our consumption. But with the right mix of energy technologies we can cut our emissions while also developing vital new industries.

That’s why continued research into nuclear, CCS, hydrogen — and, yes, wind and solar, too — is so vital. If fusion power succeeds as well, that will simply supercharge our progress.

We don’t need to choose between environmental responsibility and economic growth. Why not have both?

All good ideas but the NextGen nuclear is the only one that is feasible/practical in the near future. No distribution system for hydrogen. And if we are going to electrify vehicles there is no reason to build a distribution system for hydrogen. Carbon capture is possible but it is extremely energy intensive. The capture can take up to 1/3 of the output of a generation plant. And fusion has been "right around the corner" since I was a kid.

[GannonFan]

Yup, nuclear is where it's at. We're still paying the environmental price for environmentalists being so short-sighted in the '70's and '80's and demonizing nuclear. Who would've thought environmentalists would be responsible for killing the environment?

[HI54UNI]

Power and natural gas markets going absolutely crazy yesterday, today, and expected through Tuesday due to the extreme cold in flyover country. We had to run our fleet of diesel generators yesterday and again today through Tuesday.

Our region of the power market has 20,000 MW of coal capacity. 18,000 MW were online and working yesterday. It also has 27,000 MW of wind capacity but only 2,700 MW were operating due to lack of wind. So at that ratio we would have needed another 180,000 MW of wind to replace the coal that was running. Shutting down fossil fuel generation is going to be a great idea!

[Col Hogan]

Power and natural gas markets going absolutely crazy yesterday, today, and expected through Tuesday due to the extreme cold in flyover country. We had to run our fleet of diesel generators yesterday and again today through Tuesday.

Our region of the power market has 20,000 MW of coal capacity. 18,000 MW were online and working yesterday. It also has 27,000 MW of wind capacity but only 2,700 MW were operating due to lack of wind. So at that ratio we would have needed another 180,000 MW of wind to replace the coal that was running. Shutting down fossil fuel generation is going to be a great idea!

There are predictions of possible intermittent power outages in Texas because of our large wind power farms, due to the polar vortex...just like in the upper mid-west...

https://energynews.us/2019/02/27/midwes ... st-debate/

[HI54UNI]

Market numbers are out for tomorrow. Average wholesale price of $3.00 per kWh for every hour of the day tomorrow. Not 3 cents, 3 dollars. Your typical midwest utility probably charges around 10-15 cents per kWh .

A typical day for us would cost us about $500-800 dollars to buy 1 megawatt for an entire day. Tomorrow that one megawatt will cost $71,000. Thank god we still have coal generation to meet our needs so we are not buying 100% from the market. I hope nothing breaks down tomorrow.

[SDHornet]

Market numbers are out for tomorrow. Average wholesale price of $3.00 per kWh for every hour of the day tomorrow. Not 3 cents, 3 dollars. Your typical midwest utility probably charges around 10-15 cents per kWh .

A typical day for us would cost us about $500-800 dollars to buy 1 megawatt for an entire day. Tomorrow that one megawatt will cost $71,000. Thank god we still have coal generation to meet our needs so we are not buying 100% from the market. I hope nothing breaks down tomorrow.

And the Green New Deal ain't even in play yet.

[AZGrizFan]

Market numbers are out for tomorrow. Average wholesale price of $3.00 per kWh for every hour of the day tomorrow. Not 3 cents, 3 dollars. Your typical midwest utility probably charges around 10-15 cents per kWh .

A typical day for us would cost us about $500-800 dollars to buy 1 megawatt for an entire day. Tomorrow that one megawatt will cost $71,000. Thank god we still have coal generation to meet our needs so we are not buying 100% from the market. I hope nothing breaks down tomorrow.

And the Green New Deal ain't even in play yet.

Lol. Those ARE GND type numbers, aren’t they?

[SDHornet]

And the Green New Deal ain't even in play yet.

Lol. Those ARE GND type numbers, aren’t they?

I doubt it. Should be a lot worse as coal will be phased out.

[Winterborn]

Lol. Those ARE GND type numbers, aren’t they?

I doubt it. Should be a lot worse as coal will be phased out.

Think it is going to be bad when it gets cold? Wait till ones electric motors in appliances and other items start failing (or much shorter life span) due to not having a stable base load frequency any more.

[SDHornet]

I doubt it. Should be a lot worse as coal will be phased out.

Think it is going to be bad when it gets cold? Wait till ones electric motors in appliances and other items start failing (or much shorter life span) due to not having a stable base load frequency any more.

Oh I can't wait for shit to hit the fan under these Leftist ideas. It's happening here in CA already with brownouts/blackouts during peak demand times in the summer. There a reason people with the means are leaving this shithole at a record pace.

[Winterborn]

Think it is going to be bad when it gets cold? Wait till ones electric motors in appliances and other items start failing (or much shorter life span) due to not having a stable base load frequency any more.

Oh I can't wait for shit to hit the fan under these Leftist ideas. It's happening here in CA already with brownouts/blackouts during peak demand times in the summer. There a reason people with the means are leaving this shithole at a record pace.

I hope it does but my guess is they will not learn anything from it. Then they will try to change their new home to be more like the place they just left and not realize what lead to why they had to abandon it in the first place.

[JohnStOnge]

From what I can tell, California's problem is not energy policy per se. It's just a flipping high cost of living State regardless. You could reduce its energy costs to low by national standards and it would still be a high cost of living state. Particularly housing costs. Here's one article on how that impacts California's net migration:

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... jor-factor

[AZGrizFan]

From what I can tell, California's problem is not energy policy per se. It's just a flipping high cost of living State regardless. You could reduce its energy costs to low by national standards and it would still be a high cost of living state. Particularly housing costs. Here's one article on how that impacts California's net migration:

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... jor-factor

It’s literally one of if not the only state in the country that has rolling brownouts on a regular basis. I’d say its energy policy IS a major problem.

[UNI88]

From what I can tell, California's problem is not energy policy per se. It's just a flipping high cost of living State regardless. You could reduce its energy costs to low by national standards and it would still be a high cost of living state. Particularly housing costs. Here's one article on how that impacts California's net migration:

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... jor-factor

It’s literally one of if not the only state in the country that has rolling brownouts on a regular basis. I’d say its energy policy IS a major problem.

The brownouts were Trump's fault. They'll stop now that Biden is POTUS.

And I have some wonderful oceanfront property just north of Platte, Nebraska to sell.