In Just 15 Months, America Made $37B In Clean Energy Investments In Fossil Fuel-Reliant Regions (msn.com) 52
America passed a climate bill in August of 2022 with incentives to build wind and solar energy in regions that historically relied on fossil fuels. And sure enough, since then "a disproportionate amount of wind, solar, battery and manufacturing investment is going to areas that used to host fossil fuel plants," reports the Washington Post.
They cite a new analysis of investment trends from independent research firm Rhodium Group and MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research: In Carbon County, Wyo. — a county named for its coal deposits — a power company is building hundreds of wind turbines. In Mingo County, W.Va., where many small towns were once coal towns, the Adams Fork Energy plant will sit on a former coal mining site and produce low-carbon ammonia... While communities that once hosted coal, oil or gas infrastructure make up only 18.6 percent of the population, they received 36.8 percent of the clean energy investment in the year after the Inflation Reduction Act's passage. "We're talking about in total $100 billion in investment in these categories," said Trevor Houser, a partner at Rhodium Group. "So $37 billion investment in a year for energy communities — that's a lot of money...."
Most significantly, 56.6 percent of investment in U.S. wind power in the past year has gone to energy communities, as well as 45.5 percent of the storage and battery investment... The analysis also found that significant amounts of clean energy investment were going to disadvantaged communities, defined as communities with environmental or climate burdens, and low-income communities. Many of the states benefiting are solidly Republican...
Josh Freed, senior vice president for climate and energy at the center-left think tank Third Way, is not sure whether the clean energy investments will make a difference for next year's election. But in the long term, he argues, rural Republican areas will become more dependent on clean energy — potentially shifting party alliances and shifting the position of the Republican Party itself. "It's going to change these fossil fuel communities," he said.
They cite a new analysis of investment trends from independent research firm Rhodium Group and MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research: In Carbon County, Wyo. — a county named for its coal deposits — a power company is building hundreds of wind turbines. In Mingo County, W.Va., where many small towns were once coal towns, the Adams Fork Energy plant will sit on a former coal mining site and produce low-carbon ammonia... While communities that once hosted coal, oil or gas infrastructure make up only 18.6 percent of the population, they received 36.8 percent of the clean energy investment in the year after the Inflation Reduction Act's passage. "We're talking about in total $100 billion in investment in these categories," said Trevor Houser, a partner at Rhodium Group. "So $37 billion investment in a year for energy communities — that's a lot of money...."
Most significantly, 56.6 percent of investment in U.S. wind power in the past year has gone to energy communities, as well as 45.5 percent of the storage and battery investment... The analysis also found that significant amounts of clean energy investment were going to disadvantaged communities, defined as communities with environmental or climate burdens, and low-income communities. Many of the states benefiting are solidly Republican...
Josh Freed, senior vice president for climate and energy at the center-left think tank Third Way, is not sure whether the clean energy investments will make a difference for next year's election. But in the long term, he argues, rural Republican areas will become more dependent on clean energy — potentially shifting party alliances and shifting the position of the Republican Party itself. "It's going to change these fossil fuel communities," he said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Which America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
WVA is heavily dependent on coal for income.
Indeed. Even the 65' houseboat Senator Joe Manchin ("D"-WV) lives on is powered by coal. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
"My guess is that voters that are concerned about energy are looking to nuclear fission", no supporting data as usual?
My guess is that voters aren't interested in energy that wouldn't be available for about 15 years and would cost multiples of the market rate for power.
Re:Which America? (Score:4, Informative)
"My guess is that voters that are concerned about energy are looking to nuclear fission", no supporting data as usual?
Here you go [pewresearch.org]. Between 2016 and 2023, the percentage of US adults supporting nuclear went from 43% to 57%.
My guess is that voters aren't interested in energy that wouldn't be available for about 15 years and would cost multiples of the market rate for power.
Voters are interested in energy that is available not just on sunny days or windy days. And that don't require so much storage to compensate that it would cost multiple times the market rate for power. Turns out that countries building nuclear, solar and wind, will always have a competitive advantage over countries that build only solar and wind.
Good for the rest of us if you insist on staying on the uncompetitive side.
Re: (Score:2)
From your link; "Americans are still far more likely to say they favor more solar power (82%) and wind power (75%) than nuclear power."
As for being competitive, have a look at the most recent US reactor, Vogtle Unit 3. "seven years late and $17 billion over budget"
https://apnews.com/article/geo... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:1)
meanwhile smarter countries like s. korea and china can make nuclear plants on time, on budget, and thus with cheaper electricity than nat gas.
24x7 power, accept no substitutes!
Re: (Score:2)
From your link; "Americans are still far more likely to say they favor more solar power (82%) and wind power (75%) than nuclear power."
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the discussion we had (nice way to deflect it, I almost fell for it). The thing the study I linked points out is that support for nuclear is growing, and accelerating (+15% in the last 7 years). Which means more voters are concerned about energy, and as the share supporting nuclear grows bigger, it makes political sense for Dems to support more nuclear.
As for being competitive, have a look at the most recent US reactor, Vogtle Unit 3. "seven years late and $17 billion over budget"
Hint: don't build a single car in the US for 30 years, then try to build only ONE. Guess what: it will be expensive as h
Re: (Score:3)
The claim was that "voters that are concerned about energy are looking to nuclear fission", but in fact they are looking for wind and solar. Mainly because that's what is successfully being built and deployed at a rapid clip.
The US simply can't build nuke plants anymore, it isn't in our skill set. We can't even cast the large reactor components such as the pressure vessels, they have to be made in Japan; https://www.world-nuclear.org/... [world-nuclear.org]
The fuel used in US nuclear reactors comes from Russia, we outsourced i
Re: (Score:1)
They require a vast amount of water for cooling, there's no long term storage for the waste, they have to be sited near population centers that can receive the power, the electricity is far more expensive than both renewables and fossil generation. And of course they are potentially dangerous, there have been many major and minor incidents where radiation was released.
Standard propaganda:
- No they don't require "vast amount of water": Building them on the coastline makes the water-requirement non-existent. Building them near rivers with a closed-loop cooling design reduces the water requirement to a minimum (closed loop is those big colling towers, which incidently are also used for coal or gas plants, not just nuclear). We are talking about 2m3/s of water being used, with 0.7m3 being evaporated and the rest being sent back in the river. If your river can't deliver than
Re: (Score:3)
Yes you have to build nuke plants either next to rivers or right on the coastline, and it is because they require a huge amount of water. Those big cooling towers are evaporating it. Long term storage is going nowhere in the USA, research it. Meanwhile, most nuclear fuel waste is sitting in cooling ponds.
Nuclear power isn't even feasible in the USA anymore, and for the reasons I described plus many more. But you are welcome to your opinion.
Re: (Score:1)
Almost all energy sources need water [iop.org]. If you weren't so focused on nuclear, you would know that.
Even solar/wind indirectly needs it: mining and minerals processing requiresa huge amount of water. Batteries manufacturing requires a huge amount of water too. Recycling the solar panels, wind turbines and batteries (which last a shorter time than a nuclear plant) require a huge amount of water too.
Guess what: water is not an issue, despite what your "guts" tells you. You need ~2m3/s of water to operate a nuclea
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say nuclear is the only energy source that needs water, so your rant about that is irrelevant.
"anti-nuclear zealots like you" is a personal attack, which means you know you lost this argument.
Re: (Score:2)
The propaganda may be working, but it won't really help. What holds nuclear back is the cost, and that isn't going to change significantly.
That and the fact that it's unsuitable for most of the world, and we really need solutions that are universal. It's of little use of we are nuclear powered but billions of people are relying on fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:1)
The propaganda may be working, but it won't really help. What holds nuclear back is the cost, and that isn't going to change significantly.
Allow me to provide a different perspective on the current situation. The effectiveness of anti-nuclear propaganda was notable in a time when coal and gas were exceptionally inexpensive, and advocates against nuclear energy could convincingly portray "clean gas" as a viable alternative. This is no longer the case, which is why your propaganda is failing, and people are adjusting their views on nuclear.
In the Western world, individuals like yourself are impeding the progress of nuclear energy. Meanwhile, cou
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really saying that proliferation isn't an issue? There are no countries you wouldn't want to have nuclear power, and by extension the ability to build nuclear weapons?
In any case, the issue of safety and security, and problems securing the fuel supply and storing the waste, mean that it's still a non starter.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really saying that proliferation isn't an issue? There are no countries you wouldn't want to have nuclear power, and by extension the ability to build nuclear weapons?
What I am saying is that energy is what matters to make people and countries get out of poverty. Getting out of poverty means education, and is the best way to prevent wars in the first place. There is no other source of energy like nuclear which can do that today. And paired with solar/wind, this is the best of both world: use solar/wind when it is available, and load-follow with nuclear (or hydro when available) the rest of the time.
What you are saying is that you would rather see potentially billion of p
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't help your argument when you throw out these ridiculous straw men. Of course I don't want a billion people to suffer, I want them to have cheap and clean renewable power!
Re: (Score:2)
It is as if I purposefully did it, using the same sentence structure as you, to highlight the fact that you did that first.
I want them to have cheap and clean renewable power!
There, you said it. You want them to have cheap and clean renewable power. Your first priority is for the power to be renewable.
On my side, I want them to have cheap low-carbon energy. This includes renewable AND nuclear/hydro (and stop using the word "clean"; no energy source is clean, even less solar/wind with the amount of mining required).
Your idealogy is "renewables, renewables, re
Re: (Score:2)
You are doing it again. Sorry, I can't be bothered with this bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
You are doing it again.
Doing what? Succeeding in the debate through the presentation of well-articulated and substantiated evidence?
Sorry, I can't be bothered with this bullshit.
No big deal. It's a bummer that you don't handle criticism well and struggle to have a proper debate.
It would be better if your arguments were more science-based too.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"My guess is that voters that are concerned about energy are looking to nuclear fission", no supporting data as usual?
The post from sonlas that is a sibling comment to this has a good link, and would have likely been the same one I'd cite.
My guess is that voters aren't interested in energy that wouldn't be available for about 15 years and would cost multiples of the market rate for power.
You appear to not realize that "support for nuclear power" includes more than just building more in the future, it means not forcing existing nuclear power plants to close. I've seen nuclear power plants get a 20 year extension to their operating license from the NRC only to close before that extension takes effect because the power plant lost support from the state government. We have
Re: (Score:3)
Nuke plants have a lifetime, and it can be extended but only at great cost. "close before that extension takes effect because the power plant lost support from the state government", yeah because the government didn't want to spend $billions on a retrofit. That isn't the same as "forcing existing nuclear power plants to close".
As for your "post from sonlas" cite, that turns out to show support for nuclear as far below solar and wind. Most people don't know how hugely expensive nuclear electricity really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Some might. [scientificamerican.com]
Re: Which America? (Score:2)
On average, it takes the Japanese less than 5 years to build a nuclear power plant. In South Korea and China, less than 6 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynu... [sustainabi...umbers.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"takes the Japanese less than 5 years to build a nuclear power plant". That's nice, but according to your article the Hinkley Point C nuke plant is going to take at least 10 years, assuming no further delays. Vogtle Unit 3, the most recent US plant, just recently came online and construction had started in 2009.
Re: Which America? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it like that in your country? That must be some ass-backwards territory.
Re:silly socialists (Score:4, Funny)
There always has to be one complete moron making an utterly stupid comment....
Pull a Trump (Score:2, Informative)
I wish it was 10x the amount. It is too bad Biden does not get b***s and redirect some $ from the defense budget.
There is precedent for doing that. Trump diverted funds from defence to build a border wall, that was also allowed by the US Supreme Court (IIRC). At the time, many GOP pols said a Democrat President could declare a Climate Emergency and do the same.
So, time for Biden to do the same.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
They've already handed down multiple rulings overturning enormous segments of law (most pointedly, campaign finance law, the right to an abortion and the virtually complete destruction of the Voting Rights Act) in which it was utterly transparent that their conclusion was derived from right wing ideology, not
Re: (Score:2)
There is precedent for doing that. Trump diverted funds from defense to build a border wall, that was also allowed by the US Supreme Court (IIRC). At the time, many GOP pols said a Democrat President could declare a Climate Emergency and do the same.
You're forgetting the Supreme Kangaroo Court. If Biden does that, they will strike it down after permitting Trump to do the exact same thing on the basis that Governing While Democrat isn't allowed.
But... this Court deeply respects established precedent ... (Ha, ha - *snort* ...)
[Though, seriously, they said, under oath, in their confirmation hearings that they did.]
Re: (Score:3)
Biden should spend DOD money on defending the border with Mexico? I read he's doing that.
https://www.militarytimes.com/... [militarytimes.com]
If you mean that the Biden administration should spend DOD money on energy then that's something I read as also happening. I'm having trouble finding a good source to cite on that, too much noise from more recent news events. Anything defense related gets results on what is happening in Israel or Ukraine. Oddly enough though I found news of the Department of Energy building new nucle
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I wish it was 10x the amount. It is too bad Biden does not get b***s and redirect some $ from the defense budget.
That's ignorance speaking. Stop barking up the wrong tree.
The defense budget is ~3.5% of US GDP.
US health care spending is about 18% of GDP. That of other developed nations runs from 9-11% of GDP. In other words, about twice the annual military budget. Meanwhile, the US is well below the top in measures of health care quality such as longevity (currently ranked 47 in the world).
In other words, the USA is spending 7% of GDP more than other developed nations, about twice the entire annual US military budg
in other words (Score:3, Informative)
While communities that once hosted coal, oil or gas infrastructure make up only 18.6 percent of the population, they received 36.8 percent of the clean energy investment in the year after the Inflation Reduction Act's passage.
Places which bitch about socialism have their hands out for all that free money which their Republican officials will brag out.
Re: (Score:1)
Republicans will brag about the money they got from the Inflation Reduction Act? As I recall no Republicans voted for it, and unless someone is messing with Wikipedia that does appear to be the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What is there to brag about? They suckered the Democrats to hand out money to Republicans? I'm sure that will go over well with Democrat leaning voters, with friends like that who need enemies?
I'm a bit foggy on what the IRA did about coal as that appeared to be a sticky poi
Re:in other words (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans will brag about the money they got from the Inflation Reduction Act?
Yes, they [go.com] have [theguardian.com]. In fact, to cut Republicans off from bragging about projects in their communities created by the Inflation Reduction Act, the White House has put up signs at each location informing the people it was his administration which got the money for the project under the IRA.
You will note in the first article how Republicans will claim they've been wanting funding all along [politico.com] for whatever project. And yet, when they had control of the purse strings, the money was never available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans will brag about the money they got from the Inflation Reduction Act? As I recall no Republicans voted for it, ...
They did all vote against it and at least some are also taking credit for it or, at least praising the results. From Republicans Are Taking Credit for Infrastructure Bill They All Voted Against [newrepublic.com] (and others):
Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) lauded the news Tuesday, celebrating the law’s impact on Alabama’s rural communities:
Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.
Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts.
-- Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) also tweeted [twitter.com] an article boasting about Texas receiving a whopping $3.3 billion for broadband, more than any other state in the nation.
Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC)on Wednesday hosted a press conference celebrating the law’s allocation of nearly $26 million to a Charleston, South Carolina, regional bus hub featuring electric buses. Mace has previously called [twitter.com] the bipartisan infrastructure law “absurd” and a “fiasco,” and specifically derided funding electric mass transportation as “socialism.”
And yet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
E-bikes [arstechnica.com]
Fox vs CNN (Score:2)