Remember 2016 When Gas Was Under $2 Per Gallon?

[Gil Dobie]

Don't worry. We're about to have a President who has no clue about anything. I'm sure he'll fix it.

It's a good thing his cabinet will be staffed with people that don't have a clue about anything. Come to think of it, we just went thru 24 years of similar leadership.

[ASUG8]

I don't understand why people always take sides on US energy. Fucking do it all. Carbon-based, sun-based, wind-based, hydro, nuclear, etc.

It's all the NIMBY's. People want all this stuff out in the god-forsaken desert, not messing up their view with solar panels or disrupting their cookouts with the sound of the windmills in their backyards or off the shoreline. I'm all for nuclear power and clean coal, but I won't be a hypocrite and say that I'd like to be close to the plants.

[93henfan]

I don't understand why people always take sides on US energy. Fucking do it all. Carbon-based, sun-based, wind-based, hydro, nuclear, etc.

It's all the NIMBY's. People want all this stuff out in the god-forsaken desert, not messing up their view with solar panels or disrupting their cookouts with the sound of the windmills in their backyards or off the shoreline. I'm all for nuclear power and clean coal, but I won't be a hypocrite and say that I'd like to be close to the plants.

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

[ASUG8]

It's all the NIMBY's. People want all this stuff out in the god-forsaken desert, not messing up their view with solar panels or disrupting their cookouts with the sound of the windmills in their backyards or off the shoreline. I'm all for nuclear power and clean coal, but I won't be a hypocrite and say that I'd like to be close to the plants.

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

No argument here - heck, I'm 45 minutes away from an aging nuke plant. My point isn't about where the plants are now, but rather the expansion moving forward. HI95 can correct me, but there's a ton of line loss in moving electricity over long distances so you have to have the power generation near where the people are hence the EC(b).

I'm all for using every energy avenue, but the folks advocating "no nukes" and "no coal" are the same ones who will get pissed when a dam interferes with the habitat of the snail darter or doesn't contain salmon ladders. They want to be able to take their Prius to the beach without having 400 foot windmills occluding their sunrises and killing passing eagles. They want solar, but get upset when the solar farms incinerate birds.

There's a cost for going clean, but the environmentalists on the far left aren't willing to accept it. Put a wind farm on Pike's Peak, Glacier, or the Tetons and see what happens.

[HI54UNI]

I'm not sure you understand the difference between capacity and energy, spinning reserves, regulation and other ancillary services, or any of the other stuff that goes with the electric grid.

Maybe you and 89 can team up and find a way to refute the point of the article. I mean assuming either of you actually read it

I did read it. It talks about energy production. It doesn't talk about capacity. It also talks in percentages. According to EIA in 2015 solar was 0.6%. So it can increase by 100% next year and journalists write articles to make people go "WOW!" but it will still only be 1.2% of energy production.

As others have mentioned we need an all of the above approach. My employer has coal, hydro, natural gas, wind, solar, and diesel in our energy mix. We are currently looking at adding more wind and more solar. Never put all your eggs in one basket.

[HI54UNI]

Geothermal generates electricity? I'm not familiar with that.

Steam-driven turbine?

Essentially yes. They use the heat to make steam and drive the turbine. Not much of it in the US because there are limited sites that will work. I think Iceland is one of the leaders of using geothermal for power production.

[houndawg]

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

No argument here - heck, I'm 45 minutes away from an aging nuke plant. My point isn't about where the plants are now, but rather the expansion moving forward. HI95 can correct me, but there's a ton of line loss in moving electricity over long distances so you have to have the power generation near where the people are hence the EC(b).

I'm all for using every energy avenue, but the folks advocating "no nukes" and "no coal" are the same ones who will get pissed when a dam interferes with the habitat of the snail darter or doesn't contain salmon ladders. They want to be able to take their Prius to the beach without having 400 foot windmills occluding their sunrises and killing passing eagles. They want solar, but get upset when the solar farms incinerate birds.

There's a cost for going clean, but the environmentalists on the far left aren't willing to accept it. Put a wind farm on Pike's Peak, Glacier, or the Tetons and see what happens.

Nice try. The environmentalists on the left are a convenient excuse whenever energy companies need one, they have more power than none at all but only just.

[HI54UNI]

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

No argument here - heck, I'm 45 minutes away from an aging nuke plant. My point isn't about where the plants are now, but rather the expansion moving forward. HI95 can correct me, but there's a ton of line loss in moving electricity over long distances so you have to have the power generation near where the people are hence the EC(b).

I'm all for using every energy avenue, but the folks advocating "no nukes" and "no coal" are the same ones who will get pissed when a dam interferes with the habitat of the snail darter or doesn't contain salmon ladders. They want to be able to take their Prius to the beach without having 400 foot windmills occluding their sunrises and killing passing eagles. They want solar, but get upset when the solar farms incinerate birds.

There's a cost for going clean, but the environmentalists on the far left aren't willing to accept it. Put a wind farm on Pike's Peak, Glacier, or the Tetons and see what happens.

I wouldn't say a ton of line loss on transmission but that is a factor. We use a 3% line loss calculation for transmission. Actually the bigger line losses are on distribution systems that deliver to the homes and businesses. They can be as much as 7-8% depending on how transformers and other things are sized. That is actually one of the advantages to distributed generation such as rooftop solar because that can be avoided.

[houndawg]

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

No argument here - heck, I'm 45 minutes away from an aging nuke plant. My point isn't about where the plants are now, but rather the expansion moving forward. HI95 can correct me, but there's a ton of line loss in moving electricity over long distances so you have to have the power generation near where the people are hence the EC(b).

I'm all for using every energy avenue, but the folks advocating "no nukes" and "no coal" are the same ones who will get pissed when a dam interferes with the habitat of the snail darter or doesn't contain salmon ladders. They want to be able to take their Prius to the beach without having 400 foot windmills occluding their sunrises and killing passing eagles. They want solar, but get upset when the solar farms incinerate birds.

There's a cost for going clean, but the environmentalists on the far left aren't willing to accept it. Put a wind farm on Pike's Peak, Glacier, or the Tetons and see what happens.

Back in school, several decades ago, we had an engineer from KCPL telling us that they were considering transmitting power from the plant in DC. Always wondered if that got any further consideration.

[Grizalltheway]

Maybe you and 89 can team up and find a way to refute the point of the article. I mean assuming either of you actually read it

I did read it. It talks about energy production. It doesn't talk about capacity. It also talks in percentages. According to EIA in 2015 solar was 0.6%. So it can increase by 100% next year and journalists write articles to make people go "WOW!" but it will still only be 1.2% of energy production.

As others have mentioned we need an all of the above approach. My employer has coal, hydro, natural gas, wind, solar, and diesel in our energy mix. We are currently looking at adding more wind and more solar. Never put all your eggs in one basket.

I'm not suggesting an eggs in one basket approach. I'm just saying that the sooner we start seriously trying to phase out fossil fuels, the better.

[CAA Flagship]

I'm not sure you understand the article.

Electricity Production
Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.6%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.6%
Wind = 4.7%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases = <1%

I just added that up.

[Grizalltheway]

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

No argument here - heck, I'm 45 minutes away from an aging nuke plant. My point isn't about where the plants are now, but rather the expansion moving forward. HI95 can correct me, but there's a ton of line loss in moving electricity over long distances so you have to have the power generation near where the people are hence the EC(b).

I'm all for using every energy avenue, but the folks advocating "no nukes" and "no coal" are the same ones who will get pissed when a dam interferes with the habitat of the snail darter or doesn't contain salmon ladders. They want to be able to take their Prius to the beach without having 400 foot windmills occluding their sunrises and killing passing eagles. They want solar, but get upset when the solar farms incinerate birds.

There's a cost for going clean, but the environmentalists on the far left aren't willing to accept it. Put a wind farm on Pike's Peak, Glacier, or the Tetons and see what happens.

We have plenty of room for wind installations without needing to put them in national parks.

[ASUG8]

No argument here - heck, I'm 45 minutes away from an aging nuke plant. My point isn't about where the plants are now, but rather the expansion moving forward. HI95 can correct me, but there's a ton of line loss in moving electricity over long distances so you have to have the power generation near where the people are hence the EC(b).

I'm all for using every energy avenue, but the folks advocating "no nukes" and "no coal" are the same ones who will get pissed when a dam interferes with the habitat of the snail darter or doesn't contain salmon ladders. They want to be able to take their Prius to the beach without having 400 foot windmills occluding their sunrises and killing passing eagles. They want solar, but get upset when the solar farms incinerate birds.

There's a cost for going clean, but the environmentalists on the far left aren't willing to accept it. Put a wind farm on Pike's Peak, Glacier, or the Tetons and see what happens.

We have plenty of room for wind installations without needing to put them in national parks.

You can provide power to 99% of eastern MT with only a couple of windmills. Anything above that is just showing off your abundance of available space.

[houndawg]

No argument here - heck, I'm 45 minutes away from an aging nuke plant. My point isn't about where the plants are now, but rather the expansion moving forward. HI95 can correct me, but there's a ton of line loss in moving electricity over long distances so you have to have the power generation near where the people are hence the EC(b).

I'm all for using every energy avenue, but the folks advocating "no nukes" and "no coal" are the same ones who will get pissed when a dam interferes with the habitat of the snail darter or doesn't contain salmon ladders. They want to be able to take their Prius to the beach without having 400 foot windmills occluding their sunrises and killing passing eagles. They want solar, but get upset when the solar farms incinerate birds.

There's a cost for going clean, but the environmentalists on the far left aren't willing to accept it. Put a wind farm on Pike's Peak, Glacier, or the Tetons and see what happens.

We have plenty of room for wind installations without needing to put them in national parks.

Especially with the vertical axis turbines.

We can put the homeless to work cleaning the dead birds for indigent shelters.

[houndawg]

Steam-driven turbine?

Essentially yes. They use the heat to make steam and drive the turbine. Not much of it in the US because there are limited sites that will work. I think Iceland is one of the leaders of using geothermal for power production.

And throwing crooked bankers in jail.

[Ibanez]

I do...it was last week.

[Ibanez]

It's all the NIMBY's. People want all this stuff out in the god-forsaken desert, not messing up their view with solar panels or disrupting their cookouts with the sound of the windmills in their backyards or off the shoreline. I'm all for nuclear power and clean coal, but I won't be a hypocrite and say that I'd like to be close to the plants.

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

EC(b) and the South FTW!

TVA just brought a Nuke plant on line a few months ago.

https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-Sy ... lear-Plant

With the addition of the first new commercial nuclear reactor brought online in the United States in the 21st century, Watts Bar now has the two newest nuclear units in the nation. Commercial operation of Watts Bar Unit 2 was declared in October 2016, while Unit 1 began operation in 1996.

[houndawg]

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

EC(b) and the South FTW!

TVA just brought a Nuke plant on line a few months ago.

https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-Sy ... lear-Plant

With the addition of the first new commercial nuclear reactor brought online in the United States in the 21st century, Watts Bar now has the two newest nuclear units in the nation. Commercial operation of Watts Bar Unit 2 was declared in October 2016, while Unit 1 began operation in 1996.

And people think Engineers don't have a sense of humor..

[BDKJMU]

I did read it. It talks about energy production. It doesn't talk about capacity. It also talks in percentages. According to EIA in 2015 solar was 0.6%. So it can increase by 100% next year and journalists write articles to make people go "WOW!" but it will still only be 1.2% of energy production.

As others have mentioned we need an all of the above approach. My employer has coal, hydro, natural gas, wind, solar, and diesel in our energy mix. We are currently looking at adding more wind and more solar. Never put all your eggs in one basket.

I'm not suggesting an eggs in one basket approach. I'm just saying that the sooner we start seriously trying to phase out fossil fuels, the better.

Wrong. We keep on making new discoveries. Cheap, abundant fossil fuel will be available well into the next century..

[Grizalltheway]

Hardly any nuclear plants in the desert. It's hard to cool uranium rods with sand.

EC(b) and the South FTW!

TVA just brought a Nuke plant on line a few months ago.

https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-Sy ... lear-Plant

With the addition of the first new commercial nuclear reactor brought online in the United States in the 21st century, Watts Bar now has the two newest nuclear units in the nation. Commercial operation of Watts Bar Unit 2 was declared in October 2016, while Unit 1 began operation in 1996.

Looks like you have a few close to you. Good luck.

[SDHornet]

I don't understand why people always take sides on US energy. Fucking do it all. Carbon-based, sun-based, wind-based, hydro, nuclear, etc.

This. If we really want to ween off of fossil fuels, nuclear is the way to go.

[houndawg]

I don't understand why people always take sides on US energy. **** do it all. Carbon-based, sun-based, wind-based, hydro, nuclear, etc.

This. If we really want to ween off of fossil fuels, nuclear is the way to go.

wean.

Very doable if they would be smarter about things like siting them on fault lines, and using decentralized facilities that don't produce weaponizible waste.

[SDHornet]

This. If we really want to ween off of fossil fuels, nuclear is the way to go.

wean.

Very doable if they would be smarter about things like siting them on fault lines, and using decentralized facilities that don't produce weaponizible waste.

It wasn't the earthquake that did Fukushima in, it was the tsunami.

[Grizalltheway]

This. If we really want to ween off of fossil fuels, nuclear is the way to go.

wean.

Very doable if they would be smarter about things like siting them on fault lines, and using decentralized facilities that don't produce weaponizible waste.

TerraPower, baby!

http://terrapower.com/pages/technology

[houndawg]

wean.

Very doable if they would be smarter about things like siting them on fault lines, and using decentralized facilities that don't produce weaponizible waste.

It wasn't the earthquake that did Fukushima in, it was the tsunami.

my bad...coastal fault lines.

Come to think of it maybe Oklahoma would be a great place to centralize nuclear energy production.... clearly god already hates them judging by all the tornados and earthquakes and the populace will swallow whatever you tell them.