Thank you coal!

[VictorG]

Thank-you coal!

And this..

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel/ ... on-n217421" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environm ... um-n217226" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HI54UNI]

Interesting read on the pros/cons, challenges and backlash from pepes like HI5 on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/scien ... 22%7D&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Grizalltheway]

Interesting read on the pros/cons, challenges and backlash from pepes like HI5 on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/scien ... 22%7D&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Didn't read a word of it, did ya?

[HI54UNI]

Didn't read a word of it, did ya?

I did actually. I've read a lot of articles about Germany's energy transformation. The choice was either the response I gave you or a JSO type dissertation that you probably wouldn't read anyway. Since I was at work and had things to do this was the easier choice.

[HI54UNI]

-23 temperature this morning so a lot of electric load.

For our small utility:

1 out of 11 MW of wind producing
28 out of 28 MW of hydro producing
72 out of 72 MW of coal producing

[CAA Flagship]

-23 temperature this morning so a lot of electric load.

For our small utility:

1 out of 11 MW of wind producing
28 out of 28 MW of hydro producing
72 out of 72 MW of coal producing

#LivesSaved

[HI54UNI]

Hotter than hell out today with lots of A/C running. Tomorrow is supposed to be worse.

Our generators running today:

31 MW of 31 MW of hydro
74 MW of 74 MW of coal
0.118 MW of 11 MW of wind

Our regional market with 47,305 MW of generation running right now:

44% coal
5% hydro
13% wind
4% nuclear
33% natural gas
1% other

[89Hen]

[HI54UNI]

It was -17 on my way to work today. Current temp is -7.

Currently 37,346 MW of generation running in the SPP market. 53% is coal. Another 29% is natural gas. So 82% is fossil fuels. Only 8% is coming from wind.

Thank you coal and natural gas for keeping me from freezing to death.

[JohnStOnge]

My electricity has been generated using natural gas for as long as I can remember. Well...I don't know what was happening when I lived in Georgia 1985-1990. But All the other years I lived in Louisiana and it was always natural gas in Louisiana.

[kalm]

It was -17 on my way to work today. Current temp is -7.

Currently 37,346 MW of generation running in the SPP market. 53% is coal. Another 29% is natural gas. So 82% is fossil fuels. Only 8% is coming from wind.

Thank you coal and natural gas for keeping me from freezing to death.

The Illini didn't need coal and natural gas...

[andy7171]

It was -17 on my way to work today. Current temp is -7.

Currently 37,346 MW of generation running in the SPP market. 53% is coal. Another 29% is natural gas. So 82% is fossil fuels. Only 8% is coming from wind.

Thank you coal and natural gas for keeping me from freezing to death.

The Illini didn't need coal and natural gas...

No. They moved to the mountains where the wood was and deforested the shit out of it.


...at least that's what I learned from Dances With Wolves.

[kalm]

The Illini didn't need coal and natural gas...

No. They moved to the mountains where the wood was and deforested the shit out of it.


...at least that's what I learned from Dances With Wolves.

Dances with Wolves was about the Illini?

[andy7171]

They all red savages, right?

[HI54UNI]

It's -24 right now.

Currently 39,099 MW of generation running in the Southwest Power Pool market that serves our area. 45% is coal. Another 36% is natural gas. So 81% is fossil fuels. Only 9% is coming from wind. Wind is only producing about 21% of its nameplate output. Solar is 0%.

Thank you coal and natural gas for keeping me from freezing to death.

[mainejeff]

It's -24 right now.

Currently 39,099 MW of generation running in the Southwest Power Pool market that serves our area. 45% is coal. Another 36% is natural gas. So 81% is fossil fuels. Only 9% is coming from wind. Wind is only producing about 21% of its nameplate output. Solar is 0%.

Thank you coal and natural gas for keeping me from freezing to death.

Breathe it in....breathe it in deep!

[GannonFan]

It's -24 right now.

Currently 39,099 MW of generation running in the Southwest Power Pool market that serves our area. 45% is coal. Another 36% is natural gas. So 81% is fossil fuels. Only 9% is coming from wind. Wind is only producing about 21% of its nameplate output. Solar is 0%.

Thank you coal and natural gas for keeping me from freezing to death.

No nuclear.

[Winterborn]

It's -24 right now.

Currently 39,099 MW of generation running in the Southwest Power Pool market that serves our area. 45% is coal. Another 36% is natural gas. So 81% is fossil fuels. Only 9% is coming from wind. Wind is only producing about 21% of its nameplate output. Solar is 0%.

Thank you coal and natural gas for keeping me from freezing to death.

No nuclear.

I thought I read somewhere that one company (i do not remember which) was looking at seeking approval process to add a unit to one of the existing plants.

[GannonFan]

No nuclear.

I thought I read somewhere that one company (i do not remember which) was looking at seeking approval process to add a unit to one of the existing plants.

Still way too slow. If people on either side of the debate were really serious about climate change we would have built ten more nuclear plants in the past two decades. We could replace coal entirely and then start working on natural gas as well. Although at least the natural gas has had the side benefit of slowing the demand on oil. Everyone's positions on all political matters are so intractable though that it's no surprise we haven't done more with nuclear.

[HI54UNI]

It's -24 right now.

Currently 39,099 MW of generation running in the Southwest Power Pool market that serves our area. 45% is coal. Another 36% is natural gas. So 81% is fossil fuels. Only 9% is coming from wind. Wind is only producing about 21% of its nameplate output. Solar is 0%.

Thank you coal and natural gas for keeping me from freezing to death.

No nuclear.

Nuclear's been about 6% today. Hydro's about 4%.

[HI54UNI]

I thought I read somewhere that one company (i do not remember which) was looking at seeking approval process to add a unit to one of the existing plants.

Still way too slow. If people on either side of the debate were really serious about climate change we would have built ten more nuclear plants in the past two decades. We could replace coal entirely and then start working on natural gas as well. Although at least the natural gas has had the side benefit of slowing the demand on oil. Everyone's positions on all political matters are so intractable though that it's no surprise we haven't done more with nuclear.

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.

[Ibanez]

Still way too slow. If people on either side of the debate were really serious about climate change we would have built ten more nuclear plants in the past two decades. We could replace coal entirely and then start working on natural gas as well. Although at least the natural gas has had the side benefit of slowing the demand on oil. Everyone's positions on all political matters are so intractable though that it's no surprise we haven't done more with nuclear.

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.

[Grizalltheway]

Still way too slow. If people on either side of the debate were really serious about climate change we would have built ten more nuclear plants in the past two decades. We could replace coal entirely and then start working on natural gas as well. Although at least the natural gas has had the side benefit of slowing the demand on oil. Everyone's positions on all political matters are so intractable though that it's no surprise we haven't done more with nuclear.

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?

[Ibanez]

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?

There has to be. I think that's the equilibrium that Conservatives try to get to when they drone on and on about regulation. But they cut too much and the Democrats add too much. There has to be a way to regulate the industry and construction just enough that it's maintains health and safety standards but isn't over burdensome.

[CID1990]

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

There has to be. I think that's the equilibrium that Conservatives try to get to when they drone on and on about regulation. But they cut too much and the Democrats add too much. There has to be a way to regulate the industry and construction just enough that it's maintains health and safety standards but isn't over burdensome.

One problem when it comes to nuke power is scale, and the GOP is as guilty as the Dems when it comes to over-regulating nuclear plants where that is concerned. Somewhere a while back I wrote it out here so I won’t do it again, but the short version is that for nuclear material security, you have to keep your uranium in a few big piles instead of a bunch of little piles. That creates huge nuke plants which are more secure, but also more susceptible to natural disasters and accidents, and when those occur they are huge.

But HI5 is right and I’ve said it over and over... no green energy discussion is viable without coming down off the high horse over nuclear power. We already have a blueprint for safe nuclear power but we refuse to use it.