How are prices going to be reduced on energy? Wasn’t this a campaign promise?
(Sorry drill baby drill won’t work/isn’t happening)
(Sorry drill baby drill won’t work/isn’t happening)
So with wind and solar getting axed to death
- Thread starter BlIIlken2
- Start date
Won’t matter, solar will come dominate energy generation whether subsidized or not.
I am confused, what about coal? Trump brought back Clean Coal from 2017-2020, then Biden made it go away. Will we be going back to a heavier reliance on coal again?
Getting American oil producers to produce below profitability will be easy compared to bringing back coal, I assume.
Getting American oil producers to produce below profitability will be easy compared to bringing back coal, I assume.
As a nation, we really need to take a closer look at nuclear power generation.
Nuclear is the way in my opinion.
I don't have a lot of opinions on solar.
I'm starting to think that wind is a scam.
I don't have a lot of opinions on solar.
I'm starting to think that wind is a scam.
No, we won’t be going back to coal. Remember, Biden taught all the coal miners how to write code. They’re not coming back….
Nuclear is definitely the answer to providing the extra energy when wind and solar aren't at peak production. What's sad is a modern nuclear power plant literally can't melt down, even if you tried but people are still scared of them. Storing waste is a problem, but it is actually very easy to do as long as you can keep power running in the pools that store it to keep water circulating. Even without that it will be fine for a decent amount of time. Water is a very good insulator from radiation.. Plus, I have read about multiple ways to use waste products from nuclear reactors so very little waste would be left, although I'm not sure how many of them have moved beyond the prototype phase so work would need to be done there.
It would be really stupid to go back to coal. But that kind of is the leading premise of what people voted for. "What's the dumbest idea available? Let's go with that one!!"
Nuclear cannot fluctuate to respond to demand or production as its bleeding energy off rods with a long lead time to make even incremental adjustments. It's always only baseline power and fossil fuels are used to keep spin reserve levels within appropriate ranges. There is not simple solutions to how to power the grid like people imagine there are. Each type of power generation has characteristics to be actively managed with respect towards demand that is dynamically changing. Statistics help a lot, but power forecasting and balancing is not rudimentary like people take for granted. There is a reason grids are large and loads/generation are shared with multiple interconnectedness.
Yes, power grids are complicated. These are not insurmountable problems and don't automatically require us to fall back on fossil fuels. I don't know all of the ins and outs of what you are describing here, but I refuse to believe that we could not come up with a solution for these issues. Even if the only solution was to have some sort of fossil fuel back up that is still better because it would have a limited use.
wind is a scam if you believe there was no cost or government investment into fossil fuels. Our resident board nit wits would like you to think that the fossil fuel industry is the original boot strap crew, that they did everything themselves.
They did have the advantage of not having to build the entire system for the entire country all at once. That is far easier.
they think the entire development of oil industry is like the first half of there will be blood
All the keyboard warriors here on HBOT produce enough kinetic energy to probably power several large American cities.
Plus, all of the energy produced by furious fapping just from @Easthawk1062 this week could power a couple G7 nations.
Finally, all the hot air produced by all of us. HBOT could power the universe.
Plus, all of the energy produced by furious fapping just from @Easthawk1062 this week could power a couple G7 nations.
Finally, all the hot air produced by all of us. HBOT could power the universe.
I can hardly wait for the drill baby drill red states start to fight offshore drilling in their backyards.
Nuclear stocks are on the rise, Bill gates, Microsoft, Google and all the big players are going nuclear.
Any power production not being used still has a cost to the end user. The economy of scale nuclear provides is it's selling point, but also it's worst quality for wider use. That said trying to shove in the least compatible type of generation isn't a solution but counterproductive in the most extreme ways. Growth in power production has gone to smaller increments that work together in a complementary way. A large coal or nuclear plant is antagonistic to grid dynamics unless one is replacing the other.
Populations want solutions as long as they aren't in their own backyard. The single point polution source massive plants represent don't make people comfortable, but technology like wind and solar gets widely opined on because it isn't out of sight out of mind. An interstate is wonderful to live near when one wants to get somewhere, but few consider a backyard that overlooks one prime real estate. The same dilemma applies when evaluating types of generation.
All different nuclear technologies, and all experimental compared to currently installed nuclear generation. I'm not anti nuclear, but the average citizen has no capacity to understand power generation and is being marketed to by special interests. Let's not allow special interests to influence decisions best decided on merit or fit.
You might get an argument about wind energy in the the state of Iowa.
If we aren't investing in Small Modular Reactor we're already behind. Our power grid needs a big uplift to handle all the AI needs alone
I don't think it's just the subsidies. It feels like as a technology it has tended to over promise and under deliver so far. And it has massive secondary effects on the landscape, wildlife, uses massive resources to assemble and has so many parts that don't last indefinitely. It's just a whole, whole lot of "stuff" and footprint for the return on energy.
It's one thing to subsidize an industry to bring down some obvious barriers to entry or get it over the hump, when there is an obvious or credible calculation that the premise stands on its own. I'm not convinced that wind ever has a case where it actually is practical and optimal on its own merits. To me it feels like something that has no viability outside of massive subsidies and mandates.
Sure. I'm not an expert, nor am I committed to the failure of wind, but just lightly following the development of things...wind just kind of seems like the least promising at this point.
I see nuclear being used as small modular reactors near big data centers or other areas with high electric usage. Nuclear subs have been using this technology for quite a while, so I think it will translate well to the big data centers.
Which nuclear stocks? Constellation is up 10% but they also just spent $27 billion to diversify into other renewables.
Nuclear is expensive and the initial risk isn’t insurable. The Mitsubishi reactor failures in California were an unmitigated disaster.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
I’m genuinely curious on the downsides of nuclear using the smaller reactors that have been developed. I don’t think the three mile island style reactors that cost many billions and take 10-15 years to bring online make any sense, but what is your take on the smaller variants.
Also, by the time we have more significant nuclear capabilities I imagine we will have much better battery technology and could we not then store any excess energy? Nuclear seems like a great path to providing sustainable energy for the continued growth in EVs and home battery backup systems. But I admit to knowing very little about the technicalities here.
You should get an argument from the general population. Trump has lied about windmills for more than a decade. They’re a great way to diversify energy creation and massive wind farms are going to be a huge draw for computing centers.
The same is true for large solar arrays.
You clearly don't live in an area with a viable wind resource. Solar doesn't make much sense based on efficiency in the NE vs the SW, but the power price makes it a viable investment in the NE. People clamor for solutions and then stand on a soapbox at the solution everywhere on the globe in, I presume, every industry.
BWXT, CCJ, OKLO, SMR.
I also have a couple other, but they are more speculative.
Nuclear is a not a sure thing, so if bad news is reported, they have the potential to drop fast. But I will ride them as long as I can.
Last edited:
They are small and modular to integrate into the grid. How comfortable are you with nuclear waste or nuclear fuel security at significantly more sites near population centers? That's the pr campaign they are waging that's been mostly forgotten. A wind or solar installation isn't a terror or safety threat on the scale nuclear is.
If a bomb threat is called in to a small nuclear site do you start shutting it down for safety like a mall or school? So many considerations not easily answered. What if the control systems are remotely hacked at every companies installation just like the susnet virus that went after Iran's nuclear enrichment.
Last edited:
My take on these large scale wind and solar is that they don't create enough energy for the land used.
They are also ugly as hell. I would rather have a nuclear plant at the edge of town rather than have wind turbines covering all of our beautiful country.
I also think there will be issues with replacement and tear down. I just thing they are going to realize people don't want these on their land either.
They don’t need to be on the edge of your town. The largest planned wind farms were in Wyoming and Idaho, and the solar arrays were planned for rural Nevada. There’s nothing in those places.
You can build them out in the middle of nowhere and use them to power specialized districts. We’re going to need so much more energy for computing in the near future.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
I thought the economics of transporting and securing the waste was factored into the cost advantage these modular reactors have. But yes, I recognize someone could build a dirty bomb with if they got their hands on the waste.
One of the biggest problems with nuclear is that it takes forever to get approvals.
That's literally the problem with EVERYTHING. Including wind and solar. It's a discussion for another thread, but it's crippling this country.
I mean, if that's the best use case, I'm not saying don't do it, but it's a very minor and limited contributor.
At least with solar, there are more intriguing prospects for where you can eventually put panels, i.e. on buildings, roofs, etc. Integrating them into the world seems much more promising than wind turbines.
I agree there are challenges. I also think it is easy to convince people it's not great to see wind turbines all along the interstate.
We are still very early though so who knows what will happen. It will be interesting to see how things play out.
Wow, a thoughtful and respectful discussion on HBOT. Hats off gents, and keep it up!
Similar threads
