Wind Is Outpacing Coal As a Power Source In Texas For the First Time (cnn.com) 276
A new report (XLSX) from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas says wind power has surpassed coal for the first time in the state. CNN reports: Wind has generated 22% of the state's electrical needs this year. It just edged out coal, which provided 21% of the Lone Star State's power, according to the Electrical Reliability Council of Texas, which manages electrical flow on about 90% of the Texan grid. Sixteen years ago, in 2003, wind made up just 0.8% of the state's power, and coal satisfied 40% of electrical needs, the council documents show. By 2010, wind accounted for 8% of the state's energy, and it steadily inched forward to 19% last year and now 22% in the first half of 2019. At the same time, coal's portion of the energy mix has declined over the past several years, from 37% in 2013 to 24% last year and just 21% this year. Yet while wind has soared and coal-generated power has cooled, natural gas still accounts for the largest share of the state's energy mix, generating 46% of its power in 2003 and staying strong at 44% last year.
Texas... (Score:3)
Wind Is Outpacing Coal As a Power Source In Texas For the First Time
This is investors voting with their wallet, the obsolete gets replaced with better tech. Now let's have three huzzahs for the invisible hand of the free market!!!
Growth against a practical limit (Score:4, Interesting)
The growth of wind power is impressive yes, but can it get much beyond 22% percent in Texas without substantial energy storage?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Wind can power 100% of Texas, no storage needed. There was a /. article about that research here 6 months to a year ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Texas could power half of the north american continent with offshore wind power.
So could California or Oregon. Or Florida, if it had not so many hurricanes.
Re: (Score:2)
Penetration can go much higher, but eventually they will want/need more HVDC for import/export of power east and west. (Initially billed as export-only, and then the economics will favor geographically diverse import/export for parts of the day/week/year.)
Re: (Score:2)
The need for storage is greatly over-estimated. Some will make sense for smoothing and as peakers, but for the most part all you really need is a lot of windmills spread over a moderately wide area.
Re:Growth against a practical limit (Score:4, Insightful)
Most populated areas on the globe can reach about 40% combined wind and solar production over the course of a year. Above 40%, the exponentially increasing overproduction during good periods would have to be curtailed or stored, significantly decreasing the cost efficiency of those energy sources. Variable energy sources and battery storage alone can't replace traditional base load sources in the near future though, as enough base load capacity would have to be kept around to cover longer periods where batteries are depleted and neither the wind is blowing nor sun is shining.
There would have to be huge infrastructure and societal changes, as well as technological advances, for the macroeconomics to accommodate a variable energy production above 80% yearly. I personally think that it makes more sense to focus RD&D into non-carbon base load replacements for when the 40% threshold is met. Those alternatives being either affordable 4th Gen nuclear, affordable natural gas with carbon-capture storage, enhanced geothermal or sustainable biomass.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not sold at lower prices to encourage consumption? It's like how in-season produce is much cheaper than when it's out of season.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Texas... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fine by me (Score:2)
Re:Texas... (Score:5, Interesting)
That article is from 5 years ago. The economics have changed significantly since then. In Europe even offshore wind is being build subsidy free now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.windpowermonthly.c... [windpowermonthly.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So what? You absolutely could not run any fossil fuel or nuclear plant at a profit without subsidies, both direct and effective. If you took the subsidies away from them, nobody would ever install anything but solar and wind.
What doesn't make sense is making these bullshit comparisons, unless your goal is to lie like a rug.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, however, the invisible hand of the free market would have strangled wind in its cradle. It is only cost effective now because gov. helped get it up and going.
So much for the invisible hand. The invisible hand doesn't know what to do with spent nuclear fuel. The invisible hand also has no problem accepting government subsidies for coal, oil, and gas. It seems the invisible hand also has lobbyists.
So what's the total change? (Score:2)
Wind's massive rise as a percentage of electrical generation is impressive, to say the least, but it doesn't inherently mean coal generation is dropping. America (and the rest of the world) faces a constantly-increasing hunger for more electricity. Some of that is offset by more efficient devices, but but industrial growth and consumer electronics growth continue to drive up demand.
Is Texas actually reducing coal usage, or just building most of its new generating capacity from wind farms without mothballing
Re: (Score:2)
But coal is most certainly dropping.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks to shale boom, natural gas in Texas is often of negative cost. That is, producers pay consumers to take their massive supply glut.
So the reason why coal is going away in US is shale and its offering of effectively free and highly efficient fuel. Bonus points for it also being able to function as a spinning reserve for wind when necessary, so it's also making wind power generation relevant.
US energy market is currently split into two. Parts that have pipes to nearest shale field, where electricity pri
Re: (Score:3)
So medium-long term we may not need more power. In fact things tend to become more efficient over time.
I see two problems with that. First is that efficiency gains have limits. Second is Jevons paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As I recall there are studies showing this with greater fuel efficiency in automobiles. People would buy more fuel efficient vehicles when fuel prices rose but ended up driving more miles. The costs of taking a trip was reduced so people would go on more trips. They often spend more on fuel than they did before because of the psychology of it all.
You may be correct but I h
Re: (Score:2)
Jevons paradox is exactly the reason the feed-In-tariffs in Germany were funded by a electricity surcharge paid by the rend user. Of course, then all the fools go on and rant about how the high end-user price in Germany is a clear sign why renewables do not work. But it was by design and worked as expected!
Is elecricity from coal decreasing or increasing? (Score:3)
texas, like other states, needs Nuclear as well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's your take on all this?
I'm glad you asked. The future of energy in the USA is wind, hydro, nuclear, with some natural gas to bridge the transition. It pleases me to see Texas well on the path with their investments in natural gas and wind. Now all they need are some more nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear is still suffering far too much from nimby. It's reputation prevents improvements, despite being far better than coal even in terms of radioactivity.
Also, hydro, as in dams, is falling, not increasing. Not many rivers left to dam and we are finding major problems with existing dams (they are bad for the environment - as in fish such as salmon).
Finally, many of the renewable you did not mentione, such as Solar, are having a huge renaissance, growing significantly more viable. Tidal is basically i
Re: (Score:3)
Biomass is basically the only green energy source that has not had huge gains.
That's probably because biomass fuel costs as much as nuclear power.
http://www.renewable-energysou... [renewable-...ources.com]
And has a terrible energy return on investment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Finally, many of the renewable you did not mentione, such as Solar, are having a huge renaissance, growing significantly more viable. Tidal is basically identical to wind, only underwater. The tech is very similar, if more limited by location. Geothermal has even worse location issues, but is also doing very very well.
Solar and other renewable energy sources are getting propped up by government subsidy. These are artificial markets that will collapse when the subsidies end. I used to think that wind was being propped up as well but it appears that I was mistaken or wind has since got cheap enough to stand on its own. Those DOE numbers migh
Re: (Score:2)
The thread/article is about electric power generation.
Not about biofuel like ethanol of biodiesel to run a car.
Electric power plants are run by bio gas which is created from cow manure or pigshit or bio waste etc.
Why you post so many clueless posts is beyond me. Your farm must be running good if you have so much time.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed.
The United States government doesn't give the tiniest, greenest little shit about its own citizens. And its the same government that spends nothing about shoveling a trillions dollars into a dumpster with F-35 painted on the side, dousing it with lighter fluid, and setting it on fire. So the "reputation" of nuclear power would be of less tha
Re: (Score:2)
My cynical take is that the nuclear industry, like pretty much everything, is run by greedy aholes. They're lazy, inefficient, dragging things out, and whining because then the government will pour out more cash. You know, the supply-demand thing. How about making them operate more efficiently?
Just happened in Ohio (Score:2)
I live in Ohio, the state that just passed and signed into law, "HB6".
Straight-up report on the legislation (though with comments at the bottom of the page): https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/H... [legiscan.com]
Most non-corporate opinionators do not like the bill, they (including me) think it is a simple bailout for the greedy dipshits that started but could not profitably manage completion and operation of at least the Davis-Besse nuc plant. Additional modifications made to remove various forms of encouragement of renewable
Re: blindseer.... (Score:4, Insightful)
As a former Texan, I can tell you that 2 of the 3 assertions you made in that sentence are absolutely false.
Re: (Score:2)
So its shit is loose?
Re: blindseer.... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a goose. Texas highways are some of the worst in the nation. Their biggest cities are the ugliest you will ever see (their second-tier cities like San Antonio, Austin and El Paso can be nice). They have no state income tax, so they build roads out of the cheapest shit imaginable so they only last a few years before falling apart. Then, instead of fixing the highways, they just build a new one next to it, so the old highway becomes a frontage road with gun shops, payday loan places and empty Dollar Stores. They don't bother with much signage on the roads, because who gives a fuck, there's no place to go anyway so it don't matter. Land is cheap because nobody wants it, so houses are big, but very cheaply built. The McMansions don't even have windows that open.
People only go to Texas to make some money and then get the hell out. You find very few really old families in Texas, except for the Hispanic families that have been there since a hundred years before the US existed. The most famous military battle that is celebrated in Texas is one in which every single Texas fighter was slaughtered. To make up for the lack of state income tax, everything has a goddamn fee. You want to park your car in a state park? Pay up. Auto registration is very expensive. You need a fishing license to sit on the edge of a bayou and wet a line. It's all so cheap and petty. No thought at all was put into infrastructure. Texas is one of the most polluted states in the US and it's #5 in the percentage of women who die in childbirth, behind places like Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi.
The people in Texas are first rate. Really good folks, but gerrymandering has prevented them from having anything like a representative government. So things are shit there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a Texas Edition Ford 250 pickup with truck nuts and season tickets to the Astros in MinuteMaid. I danced to Joe Ely at a free concert in Hermann Park. That makes me about five times more Texan than Ted Cruz.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived and worked in the First Ward for several years. Left after Hurricane Harvey hit. So, I actually lived through a Texas flood, which makes me a lot more of a Texan than George W. Bush.
https://youtu.be/evjMjpd4PNM [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's Stevie Ray Vaughan, singing Texas Flood. Because any excuse to hear that is a good one.
Re: (Score:2)
You're very confused. My wife taught at University of Houston from 2014 to 2017. I taught at Rice, but not during those years.
Re: (Score:2)
You suck at doxxing, lad.
Re: (Score:2)
I also voted in Texas elections, which makes me more of a Texan than Louie Gohmert.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nuclear is never gonna fly in the most competitive power market in the country (if not world). Nuclear is vastly too expensive.
If we can afford offshore windmills then we can afford a new nuclear power plant.
http://www.renewable-energysou... [renewable-...ources.com]
I've been reading the news on this and the largest complaint from the nuclear power plant operators is the price pressures from wind energy subsidies. This is the same complaint all along tornado alley... I mean, the wind corridor. Many of these nuclear power plants have had their operating licenses renewed for another 20 years but they all threaten to close early because they don't get the sa
Re: (Score:2)
Subsidies are supposed to balance things out in fairness and reasonableness. Either things are not being monitored, or the govt. isn't paying attention and adjusting the subsidies. I'm sure they're seen as an open gold mine by the greedy.
Re: (Score:2)
When the time comes to a close, the old nuke plant must also be cleaned up. It's best to include all the costs of nuclear power. Now, could you please give us your home address that we may know where to send the radioactive waste?
Re:No it can't be so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is in power how can it be!
This isn't about "green as in environmentalism".
It is about "green as in money".
Wind is now cheaper than coal.
If you want to get things done, profit works better than principle.
Re:No it can't be so! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheaper? Warren Buffet disagrees [usnews.com] and states that wind is only profitable because of the transferable tax credits (subsidies).
Now tell us how profitible Nuclear is without any subsidies.
Re:No it can't be so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go [world-nuclear.org]. And it's nice to have 95%+ capacity factor, regardless of weather or time of day.
The capacity factor itself is pretty unimportant unless you are the company running it as what matters is the amount of power available at any particular point of time and whether power requirements are covered for an acceptable period of time given the cost. The power supply grid, for example, could be made much more resilient, but it would be expensive to do so, and so it is not. If the requirement is for a minimum of X power 99.999% of the time, Y 90% of the time and Z at peak periods (nominal figures fo
Re: (Score:2)
if we had 9 more Diablo Canyon plants, we'd have 100% of our electricity from nuclear
But then plants would run at 65% CF or lower.
But people like you don't grasp that because throwing around sofisticated sounding terms is mire important than knowledge.
Re:No it can't be so! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Head-in-the-sand denialism much? Straight form the horse's ass, nuclear power plants undergo routine [eia.gov] maintenance. Which means you need to spend an extra $20 billion on an extra nuclear power plant, to pick up the slack when one of your water heaters goes down for maintenance, to pick up the slack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just bring the power in from the existing areas of the USA that have extra nuclear, hydro ect?
Why have to look for where the wind is productive 24/7, design the systems to collect wind energy and then move the energy around the USA?
Place nuclear, coal where its needed and no need to pay for new networks to "bring power in from where the wind"....
Re: (Score:3)
Capacity factor. Look it up. Learn what it means. It means, on average, a wind-farm can produce about 30-40% of its rated capacity. A nuclear plant will produce 90%+ of its capacity. That's the point of the link I provided.
You want to wonder why I like nuclear? Because it is reliable, takes up little space, and is pretty damn safe. And we spend an order of magnitude less on subsidies as compared to wind, per kW generated. Those are the facts, your desires notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
And here you go [energy.gov] the U.S Energy Policy Act, Section 600 defines the *massive* amounts of subsidies Nuclear power receives, by law.
There's no section 600 in that document. Section 635 though seems to list an annual budget of $125 million for R&D and running the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Wikipedia has this graph [wikipedia.org] which seems to show minimal subsidies towards nuclear though.
If you want to be realistic about subsides then why does nuclear power need a special insurance law in the guise of the Price Anderson Act [wikipedia.org] when no other industry receives this form of corporate welfare?.
Probably because a nuclear reactor has the non-negligible risk of putting all its externalized costs into one single catastrophic event, which no company would want to have happen to. The wiki article you linked to mentions subsidies not too dissimilar for oth
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I see I've been modded down for providing facts about nuclear power again.
And here you go [energy.gov] the U.S Energy Policy Act, Section 600 defines the *massive* amounts of subsidies Nuclear power receives, by law.
There's no section 600
I am referring to the *entire* section titled TITLE VI—NUCLEAR MATTERS. Please refer to the contents of the act.
If you want to be realistic about subsides then why does nuclear power need a special insurance law in the guise of the Price Anderson Act [wikipedia.org] when no other industry receives this form of corporate welfare?.
Probably because a nuclear reactor has the non-negligible risk of putting all its externalized costs into one single catastrophic event, which no company would want to have happen to. The wiki article you linked to mentions subsidies not too dissimilar for other industries (e.g. oil spill funds, lack of liability
Re: (Score:2)
For 14billion dollars you could build a 3.5GW - 6GW wind farme the northern sea.
Re:No it can't be so! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So I followed your link, which goes to a report titled "Direct Federal Financial
Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2016". And that shows what a disingenuous little dick you are, because not also comparing indirect and effective subsidies is just another way to lie.
Nuclear gets subsidized by being permitted to stack up waste with no disposal plan, which costs everyone. It gets subsidized by The People having to pick up the tab when the reactor is decommissioned, without exception, because t
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear gets subsidized by being permitted to stack up waste with no disposal plan, which costs everyone. It gets subsidized by The People having to pick up the tab when the reactor is decommissioned, without exception, because the operators never put aside enough funding. It gets subsidized by The People having to insure the plant, because no private corporation will assume that level of risk. Wind and solar receive none of these benefits, and your pretending that the field is level is just one of your typical lies.
When you get down to the actual facts, let us know, because you're studiously avoiding them so far, then expecting us not to notice. We notice.
Yes we do notice. The Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is one of those things that is a strange contradicting subsidy of nuclear power. It's so strange that the presumptive safest form of power generation has to have the government indemnify it and pick up the tab when one of the places goes kablooey.
For Lynwood Rooster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Taxpayers for common sense has some data - https://www.taxpayer.net/energ... [taxpayer.net]
The Washington Times of all places! https://www.washi [washingtontimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and you might want to look at the actual subsidies [eia.gov], where nuclear gets about 1/4 the subsidies of wind - even though it has nearly 4X the generation [eia.gov] as wind. So when you get down to the subsidy per kW - wind is 16 times that of nuclear. That's the actual facts, based on actual spending - you know, subsidies.
Oh, you forgot the Price Anderson Nuclear indemnity act, If Nuclear power can't afford to buy an insurance policy so the guvmint picks it up. well if a plant goes Chernobyl on us, there's a hellava subsidy.
Which seems a little strange - you would thin that such a safe power generation method would have cheap insurance rates.
As well - your data has a lot of gobbldygook in it I'm not certain if it has the 6 billion in tax breaks congress approved.
Anyhow, when the nuclear power industry pays for it's
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No it can't be so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheaper? Warren Buffet disagrees and states that wind is only profitable because of the transferable tax credits (subsidies).
It only needs those subsidies to counteract the massive subsidies given to coal in the form of a free pass on pollution and death.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Translation: I have a hardon for coal so I'm going to ignore all of the flaws.
I haven't been ignoring the flaws of wind, that's just shit you made up because you don't like hearing the truth. Whether wind has flaws or not has no bearing on the indisputable fact that coal is massively subsidised by externalising many of the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheaper? Warren Buffet disagrees [usnews.com] and states that wind is only profitable because of the transferable tax credits (subsidies).
It's profitable in other countries without subsidies, though.
Re: (Score:2)
“Cheap Wind” would not have been possible without “principled” people pushing for incentives to develop the technology and market. The mere concept of a 10MW wind turbine 10 years ago was a joke, and now 12MW units are testing.
Tax incentives do help in terms of access to capital, but the economics only get better over time. The tax incentives elsewhere in the world are all but gone, yet feed-in tariffs are commensurate (or better) with conventional sources.
Re: (Score:2)
People in Texas literally go out of their way to be arrogant, self-satisfied jerks
That is the point. As long as wind power is cost effective, everyone will adopt it. Wind isn't just for greenies anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a Province that gets all its power from hydro and have never heard of environmentalists trying to undo any dams.
Re: No it can't be so! (Score:2)
But they ARE turning into California.
Really, really fast.
Re:BLINDSEER AND HIS DUMMY ACCOUNTS, FAGGOTS ALL (Score:5, Interesting)
You nuclear socialism faggots will never matter. The market has spoken, you are retards who will never be anything. Replaced by renewables more each day.
You don't matter no matter how many puppet accounts you set up, you stupid bitchseer lol.
Puppet accounts? I'm flattered. I'm thinking you just don't realize how easy it is to flip people over to nuclear power. I saw it happen in minutes in my modern history class. My professor brought up how China was investing heavily in solar power starting in the 1990s. I pointed out that they also invested heavily in nuclear power. He made a comment about the poor safety of nuclear power and Chernobyl. I pointed out that nobody has built a plant like that since the accident. He points to the more recent Fukushima event. I point out that Fukushima is older than Chernobyl. Then I saw hands of other students go up to ask more about nuclear power, and heads go down to look this up on laptops and smartphones. A young lady sitting in front of me asked the professor a question about nuclear power, and a student sitting next to me commented quietly that he verified I was right about when Fukushima was built. Then all of the sudden the professor felt a need to move on to another topic besides energy investments in post-Tiananmen China.
Those aren't "sock puppets", those are people that were flipped like my classmates in that history lecture.
I agree that the market has spoken. There has been a lot of investment in wind and natural gas lately, I won't dispute that. What's also happening, if you know to look for it, is how many people are talking about nuclear power. People know that the existing nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their operational life. People know that nuclear power is safe and low in CO2. Recent polling shows Americans are supportive of nuclear power. There's little investment in new nuclear power right now but this will change very soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans are supportive of nuclear power if you push the waste issue under the carpet and can build (and de-commission) the plants without increasing their electric bill.
I would love for nuclear power to be viable; source diversity is important. Unfortunately even with the (long) promised new technologies we haven’t managed to make enough of a difference in the cost and waste fronts to make it viable (yet).
Path of least cognitive resistance (Score:3)
Whilst I am not going to insult you, I am going to point out that you treat people with contempt to push your political agenda. I observe you constantly ignore facts and arguments placed before you in a dogmatic manner until people give up whence you accuse them of not providing facts. Provoking ad-hominen attacks such as these demonstrates a talent for psychological abuse tactics to achieve your goals.
When observing your sources we find the citations are misrepresented and some are missing.
Further obs
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it's moved to paid stooges online is because it's (a) cheaper, and (b) more effective (just ask the Russians). Ads on tv, radio, and print usuall
Re: (Score:3)
I pointed out that they also invested heavily in nuclear power.
So you lied.
China cancelled most of its nuclear power investment after Fukushima. Only plants that had already started construction were finished. They went from planning around 150 new nuclear plants to just finishing the 30 odd that were already being built, and even some of those have since been cancelled.
Instead they are massively investing in wind power and batteries.
By the way, you should really look for some copy/paste BS to attack wind, because your obsession with solar kinda gives the game away tha
Re:BLINDSEER AND HIS DUMMY ACCOUNTS, FAGGOTS ALL (Score:4, Interesting)
Same sort of religious BS, except your religion is nuclear power.
I see. I'm either a paid shill or a cult member if I talk about how nuclear power is in our future. What then of the people that talk of how wind and solar power is going to replace all coal, nuclear, and natural gas? Those people are not paid shills, or blinded by religion?
I've been posting so much about nuclear power here lately because I got fed up about how often people have been grinding nuclear power in the mud over half-truths and outright lies. In doing actual research on this I found some excellent articles on why we need to have nuclear power. I'll link to a handful of them.
https://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
https://www.world-nuclear.org/... [world-nuclear.org]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/0... [rameznaam.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
http://www.renewable-energysou... [renewable-...ources.com]
Here's my prediction, nuclear power will be a major topic of debate in the next few elections. The Democrats have been holding up nuclear power for the silliest of reasons for at least 40 years. People are getting wise to this. Part of this is because of the HBO series on Chernobyl. I haven't seen it but I have seen the effect it has had on the discussion. People are asking questions that they haven't asked before, because they didn't know enough to ask them.
We are going to hear terms like "positive void coefficient", "passive safety systems", and "core damage frequency" come up in these discussions of nuclear power safety. This is because these features separate the early second generation nuclear power plants like at Chernobyl and Fukushima from the late third generation (or "Gen 3.5") power plants that we are building today.
The only thing stopping nuclear power now is a bunch of lies on nuclear power spread by Democrats. I don't know where they are getting these lies but they will have to answer questions on them soon. If they answer correctly then that means more nuclear power with their blessing. If they answer incorrectly then it means more nuclear power without their blessing. Nuclear power has been keeping the lights on in America for the last 40+ years in spite of the Democrats. As much as they like to spread lies on nuclear power there is ample evidence from these last 40 years to show that nuclear power is affordable, safe, plentiful, and low in CO2 emissions. Denying this means the lights go out.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing stopping nuclear power now is a bunch of lies on nuclear power spread by Democrats.
This is what it comes down to. If you are a Republican you cannot support wind power. For some reason nuclear power is right wing and wind turbines are left wing. Never mind that nuclear power is dependent on big government whereas there is extremely healthy competition in every part of the wind turbine market.
I feel very safe in betting that the market with healthy competition will outperform the market without when it comes to cost reduction and innovation. Big government can keep the non-competitive mark
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you think some random web sites confirming your opinion are somehow relevant is deeply worrying. You are trapped in a google bubble. The same as people believing in homeopathic remedies or that vaccination causes autism or that climate change does not exist. It is just sad.
For example the the scientific literature mostly says that the nuclear EROI is about 14 not 75 as your websites claim.
Nuclear: 14, Wind: 18-20, PV: 10 (Energy Policy 2014, 64:141-152)
Nuclear: 15, Wind: 18, PV: 7 (Annals of t
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is going to buy bonds to finance new nuclear plants - not after the latest new nuclear plant cost overruns.
Wind and solar can be built and returning money to the investors while nuclear plants are still in the planning stage.
Nuclear is no longer economically viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion is technology very exciting and developing it potentially be worth it even so it clearly will not solve our problems now.. Nuclear on the other hand is outdated tech from the past. It is not really clear why anybody except steam punk fans can get excited about it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no.... you're 2 months behind on the latest trends.. Everybody is now talking about Fusion! We are only 6 years away.
We're only 8 light-minutes away from the source, And it comes with free delivery too. No app needed to call it up, no surge pricing, and it's cheap. Use the (fusion) source, Luke.
Re: (Score:2)
And American farmers should not be dumping their subsidized milk and other agricultural products onto world markets.
Farm subsidies encourage massive overproduction and drive the small farmers out of business via consolidation of farms into large agribusiness operations. A properly regulated system would let the little guy compete on an equal basis and be a lot cheaper when you add in
Re: (Score:2)
Farm subsidies should only be available to small farms. That would solve most of the problems. They are useful strategically, but they have obviously been misapplied.
Re: (Score:3)
America is trillions in debt to reduce costs for its manufacturers, farmers etc. That's a form of government subsidy and makes it really hard for a country trying to balance its budget to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they shouldn't dump on the US market their government subsidized panels.
Why not? Converting to solar is expensive. If the Chinese want to subsidize the cost of my panels, that is good for me.
You could claim that they are going to jack up the price as soon as they dominate, but people were claiming that 10 years ago, and Chinese panels have gone way down in price since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we get to watch capitalism kill fossil energy LOLOLOL
It should be Noted that... (Score:2, Informative)
The entire Texas wind infrastructure is privately owned and was privately financed, from the windmills to the transmission lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a dead end at all, less carbon is being released.
Nat gas releases 60 percent less carbon than coal, and wind replacing fossil use emits close to zero percent.
It's fine. In fact if we halve the amount of carbon we're currently releasing, that's the break-even point of what the Earth's natural processes can sink.
when we get below half, we'll be lowering the percent of carbon dioxide in atmosphere.
all good.
Re: (Score:2)
Increasing natgas production requires fracking. Why are you pro-fracking?
Re: (Score:2)
strawman
fracking not required, most places are banning it
if the country you live in is still doing it, maybe it's backwards redneck place, like say most the USA.
Re:Natural gas is outpacing coal, with a bit of wi (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, how is Texas going to replace the natural gas, when the wind is not available 2/3 of the time?
It cannot be done with the current infrastructure. The peak energy consumption times are hot evenings in late-summer when the wind's not blowing, the sun is setting, and everyone are running their air conditioning units. Even if Texas was powered to 80% by wind and solar over the period of a year, there would still be a need for an energy production capacity to power nearly all of Texas using reliable base load sources (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro reservoirs, biomass, geothermal) during those peaks.
In order to decarbonize those remaining peaks consumption times as well using only wind and solar, a few things all should happen:
1. Continent-scale, low-loss energy transmissions to smooth out regional variability of wind and solar
2. Very cheap batteries to expand their current role as a flexible fast-burst source into taking a part of the role as a base load source
3. Very cheap wind and solar to mitigate the cost of pushing them far beyond what's needed for local overproduction and battery charging during good times, in order to have the ability send that energy to areas far away with low wind and solar output due to variability
4. Enforce flexible consumption patterns that can move the demand to match variability and supply, rather than our current approach to match supply with demand
5. More energy-efficient devices and buildings to lower the overall demand
6. Cheap, huge physical batteries that can at least act as seasonal base load to complement the variability in energy production over several months, e.g. reservoir hydro or pumping hydrogen underground
As an alternative to the above mentioned list of things that all need to work together, we would only need the R&D into one promising base load energy source to work out out, those alternatives being affordable 4th Gen nuclear, affordable natural gas with carbon-capture storage, enhanced geothermal or sustainable biomass.
Personally, I think that focusing on finding an alternate base load energy source is the quicker path to decarbonize, but any of the list's points above that would make it easier for variable sources to reach larger deployment is a great bonus to have regardless, and is also worth investing into.
Re: (Score:2)