I feel for all my friends back in Nebraska. It's -23 in the old town as I write this. That has to be tough for the folks back there when they have no power.
LES Planned Outages
- Thread starter HuskerLove1
- Start date
I feel for all my friends back in Nebraska. It's -23 in the old town as I write this. That has to be tough for the folks back there when they have no power.
I like nuclear a lot, but renewables definitely have a place now too. Nuclear for baseload and natural gas or renewables for peak times would be ideal. Freak weather occurrences will cause problems no matter what energy source you use.
Solar and wind are not peak friendly except for summer in the daytime, gas is used for peaks, but this has been hell for that with disruption to gas supplies where cost of gas has gone up 50-100X. Building nuclear plants is not financially viable currently for to US without massive subsidies or changes.
It’s on the Texas power companies for not having more flexible options in their arsenal. It’s a business decision they made knowing full well the possibilities.
Our pioneer ancestors would be so disappointed in us.
Our pioneer ancestors would be so disappointed in us.
Consumers won’t pay for those options or the people to run them for a once a decade event.
Ah yes, the blame the liberal joke. Always the "low hanging fruit" on this board, joking or pinning blame for anything that goes wrong on a female Democratic politician, always good for 10 likes give or take. Which is approximately 10 likes or more than this post will get!
Exactly. That’s just how it is. It’s not because of renewable energy or radical socialists, etc
nuclear wasn't all 'bomb' concerns - 3 mile island and then Chernobyl didn't help matters.
kans@$$ built a nuclear plant in that era, and their electric bills are ridiculous.
it may not be the end all.
additionally,
we need everything available to us, but while people often point at treehuggers, its my understanding that natural gas producers agreed to restrict production this past summer - to limit supply & drive prices up.
collusion comes to mind.
competition is an ugly word to people who claim to love free market ideals - natural gas industry slighted coal right about the time 'clean' coal was getting real traction and simultaneously getting clobbered by green/wind industry.
i'd gather they'd line up again to impugn nuclear.
Last edited:
Those nuclear power plants and Fukushima were VERY old outdated technology. Pretty sure with new ones you can't really have a meltdown and they can be turned off.
IF you can't recognize that the "green" energy mandates have played a huge role in blackouts then there's no hope for you. When you have government entities mandating that a certain percentage of your power comes from "renewable" energy, it squeezes out traditional power generation methods. We've been shuttering coal plants in this country left and right because of government mandates. One nice thing about coal is that it is EXTREMELY easy to store. Natural gas is not by comparison. Don't get me started on wind and solar. We HAVE to maintain our ability to consistently produce energy from reliable sources and that doesn't mean wind and solar. It IS a national security issue.
Damn it OldJar! Common sense has no place in this thread. Let's stay on point please.
It's -26 right now where I'm at with ZERO wind. No wind anywhere around me and I'm surrounded by wind towers withing 150 miles of me. Good Lord what did Obama and his idiots force on us with the government tax credits and mandates.
Renewables for base power doesn't make sense to me and are niche energy sources IMO. I am all for research into MSR (molten salt reactors) - Nuclear and fusion. In the meantime natural gas with coal backup is hard to beat.
Last edited:
It isn’t hard to put in peaking plants using fuel oil or natural gas if they wanted. They chose not too. It isn’t hard to better protect their equipment from the elements. They chose not to. It’s not on Obama or the greens.
We HAVE to make sure we have enough energy generation capability to cover ourselves at times of extreme need. It is IN FACT a national security issue.
Put it in the freezer!
didnt mention fukushima, because a tsunami helped that disaster out quite a lot.
im not all that crazy about going nuclear here with all the earthquakes we've experienced due to injection wells, but i'd bet dimes to donuts the 'legacy' energy industry would beat the everlivin' sh1t out of a proposed nuke plant proposal. just a guess.
and i wonder - how big is that switch to turn it off???!!!
and forget it, i'm outta there if the big red light/alarm comes on.
Oh really. Please explain to me how you protect a freaking windmill from the elements? Please explain to me how you pay for extra generating capacity when the government regulates what you can charge for your energy. Please explain how you can pay to rehab old power generating facilities to meet federal standards and keep them operational. I'm sure you have all the answers. For years the left has done everything they can to destroy the cheapest most reliable sources of power production we have. Now I realize that it's only a part of the ruling junta's coalition, but the constant propaganda about climate change has infected the brains of people worldwide.
I agree @dinglefritz . One would think that Texas, with all that fossil fuel and not real big on renewable, would have no issues with weather. But the fact is Wind is the fastest growing source of energy and is now the number 2 source of energy behind natural gas, and supplied about 42% of the power last week. So when nearly half of the supply is frozen it creates a huge issue. Insane
Fukushima wouldn't have happened even with the tsunami with a modern reactor they could have shut down AND they don't/can't meltdown.
Wind power has many detriments. #1 is that the actual procurement of materials and manufacture of the components produces huge amounts of toxic waste. #2 is that it is only feasible through massive government subsidies. #3 is that when you add up the energy used in procuring the materials, the manufacturing, the transportation, the construction, and the maintenance they are NET ENERGY LOSERS. #4 They are UNRELIABLE. Horrible energy policy. We're beginning to look more like Iraq than that shining city on the hill with the power outages and burned out neighborhoods.
Last edited:
Even at that, nobody died from radiation when it happened. Nuclear plants are extremely safe.
not sure what you were saying there for a moment, but i'd gather there's a significant, inherent risk involved, regardless.
and we'd have to build one to know the real cost.
don't miss my main point though, i'm all for nuclear in strategic places in the grid, but 'legacy' energy producers are not.
they still have a lot of stroke.
Funny, it took me 5 minutes before I got your point. I use it myself so had to look it up.
You have more flexibility in your portfolio for starters. And many other power plants have upgraded their equipment through the years just fine. OPPD modifies their exhaust with additives to better improve the capture rate of their ESPs And they will be putting in a few more natural gas peaking plants in addition to their increasing wind portfolio. Like other power plants throughout the country, they have managed to upgrade their equipment to meet the standards put in by the older Bush through the CAA of 1990. But keep pushing out your conspiracies about the ruling junta.
Yes, no one died, but they still have a sh!t ton of contaminated soil etc around the containment area near Fukushima. Geiger counters etc near the town's close by to make sure radiation levels are fine.
But again, Fukushima was OLD ASS technology. EXTREMELY outdated. Chernobyl was that and Russian to boot.
Three mile island? Well according to a terrible movie I saw I believe that was caused by Wolverine and Deadpool.
I would agree to a point. But that may change.
The "legacy" energy producers have already began the switch to renewables. Most believe the demand for refined petroleum, at least domestically, has already peaked. So these companies have already began investing hundreds of millions if not billions in renewable. The problem, for the legacy producers, is that the return on capital is less for renewables. The average return for a typical oil project is about 15%, for renewables is in the 8-10% range.
Will the legacy producers continue to get investors. Exxon Mobil was dropped from the Dow Jones, and the energy sector is the smallest component in the S&P 500. There are already smaller companies producing renewables. Why pour money into the legacies while they attempt to prove a new concept when there is already a player making money in that sector. On the other hand, the legacies have the balance sheet to invest more and faster than the smaller, newer companies. The have the knowledge of what worked for the smaller companies, so the learning curve shouldn't be as steep or expensive. These larger companies should be well suited to manage these big products.
I see where BP is beginning to liquidate their physical assets as the are going to start investing in renewables.
i'd add supply has significantly outpaced demand.
plus,
saudi's turn the spigot on/off with the flick of the wrist.
add in: $10/barrel cost there vs. what? $40-50/barrel here.
when its $100/barrel its great, at $30 not so much.
Last edited:
My biggest issue with how Biden and the far left are handling this is that these companies have already started to transition to green. This isn't a flip of the switch transition, and by cutting off the Keystone pipeline they are doing more damage than good. I equate it to quitting a job before you find a new one. Our current grid cant handle furnaces, let alone electric cars for everyone.
Yep. They don't understand that the market will transition to green energy as it becomes economically viable. Forcing it on the country too early will destroy the economy, making it harder for renewables to advance technologically.
