Look up the countries and volume where uranium is mined. Kazakhstan, Namibia, Uzbekistan, Russia, Niger, China, India, South Africa, and Ukraine are all higher producers than the US. Canada and Australia are allies of the west, but when does volume availability impact economics? It's a much more nuanced what if than at a glance.
So with wind and solar getting axed to death
- Thread starter BlIIlken2
- Start date
Well maybe wind will have a limited use case as a power source like hydro or thermal. I just don’t see why we would come out against any form of power generation. If we want to be truly energy independent it’s going to take a diverse array of sources.
I mean outside of Russia and China, none of that uranium is enriched within its country of origin. Fissile material and heavily radioactive waste are an entirely different animal.
I don’t know that you can make a cheap nuclear facility. Even the most efficient SMRs have significant costs for security and protective systems.
60 percent of Iowa’s energy is wind generated.
It depends on what "come out against" means. If it's a relative waste of resources mainly lining a few company's pockets, and the money could be spent elsewhere, I have zero problem telling the wind people that it's time to turn a profit on your own. The exact kind of project and use case you describe seems like it should have no need for government subsidy...it should make sense in the market. I don't think you simply have to shovel money at every potential solution if it never has a chance to be sustainable in the market.
Deciding it's not a good use of tax dollars isn't the same as coming out against it.
That said, I'm not defending the EO necessarily, as I have zero faith that there is reasoning behind it other than reverse virtue signalling. But the "Hey we have to shovel money at this and subject it to very little scrutiny even though it doesn't justify itself because of [massive existential threat}" is a massive playground for graft and corruption by the billions. See the Cold War. See COVID.
Again I don't know for SURE that wind is a dead end, but I've become suspicious of these morally compelled expenditures in my late middle age, and wind is starting to strike me as potentially dubious.
That's awesome. It's also like what, less than two million people served? I guess it's a proof of concept to some extent, but it doesn't defacto prove to me that it's a good use of resources or a potential significant contributor to reducing fossil fuels.
One of the problems with wind and solar is that they tech is advancing so fast. We were told that these turbines will last 30 years, but now the tech has improved enough in 4 years that it makes sense to replace them early. This means they are not nearly as cost effective as they were claimed to be.
I'm not sure how much this matters, but it does have an effect.
My son had a zoom meeting an hour ago for a wind tech internship.
I’m sure most of you DGAF, but my son got the internship!
It's also extremely expensive to build nuclear power plants. And the green energy that they produce promises a legacy of very expensive removal and storage of spent nuclear fuel rods. And those rods can only add up and remain toxic for many lifetimes.
Good for him. That's a good field of work with great wages.
China is building hundreds of coal fired power plants.
We need to utilize our coal reserves asap.
Drill baby Drill - Mine baby Mine.
We need to utilize our coal reserves asap.
Drill baby Drill - Mine baby Mine.
There are many different things that can be done (although putting it in cement seems like it would create more problems than it solves) but the most interesting of them is to use it in Thorium reactors to get more clean energy.
Yup. They have increased investments in other forms though. I know they are building nuclear reactors too. They were really embarrassed by all the pictures of their smog laden cities and have made efforts to at least try and clean the air up a bit.
Not anymore. They really pulled back in 2024 on coal plants. Only 12 built last year. Wind, solar, nuclear is what they are prioritizing.
Wrong. They only built a few last year. They are prioritizing other energy sources.
So, you are in the "if it doesn't 100% correct the problem and be more efficient than fossil fuels it shouldn't be used under any circumstances" group too?
No, I'm right as usual and you are wrong as usual.
As the number one importer of both crude oil and coal, China is the largest consumer of energy and CO2 producer in the world. Approximately one-third of all CO2 emissions across the globe (30.7% in 2022) were generated by China. With 1,142 coal-fired power plants in operation as of July 2023, mainland China currently has a far greater number of coal-fired plants than any other country. India comes in a distant second with 282 coal-fired plants, and the U.S.is third with 210 plants. Approximately 170 of the remaining coal-fired plants in the U.S. are scheduled to be de-commissioned by 2030, and there are no plans to build any new coal-fired plants in the U.S. Meanwhile China is adding to its inventory of coal-fired power plants at a record rate. [See e.g., “Producers and Contractors are Drawing Criticism over the Carbon Footprint of Concrete”, posted 6/21/23].
During the first six months of 2023, China issued permits for the construction of approximately 50 new coal-fired power plants, an average of two per week. China currently has more than 300 coal-fired plants that are either under construction, permitted, or awaiting permitting. If all 300 plants are constructed, China’s inventory of coal-fired power plants will increase by more than 25%. Currently, China has six times more coal-fired power plants under construction than the rest of the World combined. Such rapid growth, prompted a research analyst at the Global Energy Monitor, - Flora Champenois – to comment “[e]verybody else is moving away from coal and China seems to be stepping on the gas”.
China is Building Coal-Fired Power Plants at an Alarming Rate
As the number one importer of both crude oil and coal, China is the largest consumer of energy and CO2 producer in the world. Approximately one-third of...
insights.taylorenglish.com
If there's money to be made, private industry will create wind and solar power with or without government help.
If private industry doesn't pursue this without government subsidies, there's a damn good reason why.
If private industry doesn't pursue this without government subsidies, there's a damn good reason why.
Look at newer articles. They had built a large number of coal plants but slowed that down in 2024. It’s a fairly recent change in direction for them, but they are going into renewables instead.No, I'm right as usual and you are wrong as usual.
As the number one importer of both crude oil and coal, China is the largest consumer of energy and CO2 producer in the world. Approximately one-third of all CO2 emissions across the globe (30.7% in 2022) were generated by China. With 1,142 coal-fired power plants in operation as of July 2023, mainland China currently has a far greater number of coal-fired plants than any other country. India comes in a distant second with 282 coal-fired plants, and the U.S.is third with 210 plants. Approximately 170 of the remaining coal-fired plants in the U.S. are scheduled to be de-commissioned by 2030, and there are no plans to build any new coal-fired plants in the U.S. Meanwhile China is adding to its inventory of coal-fired power plants at a record rate. [See e.g., “Producers and Contractors are Drawing Criticism over the Carbon Footprint of Concrete”, posted 6/21/23].
During the first six months of 2023, China issued permits for the construction of approximately 50 new coal-fired power plants, an average of two per week. China currently has more than 300 coal-fired plants that are either under construction, permitted, or awaiting permitting. If all 300 plants are constructed, China’s inventory of coal-fired power plants will increase by more than 25%. Currently, China has six times more coal-fired power plants under construction than the rest of the World combined. Such rapid growth, prompted a research analyst at the Global Energy Monitor, - Flora Champenois – to comment “[e]verybody else is moving away from coal and China seems to be stepping on the gas”.
China is Building Coal-Fired Power Plants at an Alarming Rate
As the number one importer of both crude oil and coal, China is the largest consumer of energy and CO2 producer in the world. Approximately one-third of...
You are lying that trump brought back clean coal. People have been working on clean coal plants for a long time to capture CO2, turn coal into syngas, and to sequester CO2. Obama had the Dept of Energy working on them
But there are not very many of them and none of them are 100% clean so the naming is erroneous.
And reducing solar and wind assistance and research is very shortsighted as you would expect from the dumpster
Wind energy powers a plurality of homes in Iowa and they hope to power all homes in a few years.
The 3 mile island type reactors which all of the current US reactors are like most in the world are high pressure boiling water reactors. It takes a long time to build them because they need to be encase in thick concrete and have a ton of backup systems to protect against failures. The boiling water part is a major problem.
The newer reactor designs as others have said are much safer. The Dept of Energy had a molten salt reactor running for about 2 years in the 1960s. They even cut all electricity to the reactor while some world wide nuclear experts were there and the system temp went up but that helps stop the reactions in this design plust the frozen plug would empty the salt coolant.
Such simple ideas from a simple man. You speak on things for which you know nothing.
Even in Texas - the oil and gas capital of the country, if not the world - wind accounts for 30% of power generation. Wind is not some fad that is being propped up by government subsidies. It’s a significant source of electricity in this country, particularly in the areas of the country where it is naturally windier.
Trump said he was bringing coal back. He is infallible. It came back. Tens of thousands of men went back to work in the mines. Just ask him.
Sometimes what is most profitable isn't what's best for the country which is why there needs to be subsidies.
I think their cost effectiveness is mostly very low labor costs and zero fuel costs. They can also be sited much closer to the large load centers bringing down the transmission costs. This also eliminates a lot of line losses associated with long transmission lines and those can be huge.
So because of a tragic event 40 years ago that occurred in communist Soviet Union nuclear is a non starter today? JFC you’re a moron.
Get the quick facts on wind energy and our wind farms
Read interesting facts about wind energy in Iowa.
www.midamericanenergy.com
Similar threads
