$18 for a beer at the 2022 PGA Championship (Tulsa Oklahoma)

[James Wyrembelski]

I'm glad to see the pro nuclear arguments are finally beginning to gain just a little bit of traction. Unfortunately, it may be too little to late.

They finally finished the 2 year shut down of the Palisades nuclear plant here in Michigan. We've lost 800 megawatts on our grid just as we're now hearing demand in the great lakes region is expected to climb this summer and there's nothing to make up the shortfall. So, expect possible planned outages during peak demands. Im taking it with a grain of salt, but if we have to deal with possible outages this year I'm done. Someone else can buy the place and try to make it work through the next swath of crises.

The State realized we have quite a problem and tried getting the company to reverse it's shutdown. Again, too little too late. Shutdown was a 2 year process. You don't just turn the switch back on. Perhaps they would have changed their minds if nuclear power received the same subsidies that "green" and natural gas energy enjoys. Of course, after warnings of possible energy shortages (well before 2022) after the closures of a few coal/gas and now the nuclear plant the state just says "we'll buy it from somewhere else" when we need it.

[Bobby Henderson]

It's going to be pretty difficult to get any new nuclear power plants built in the US. Despite the clear advantages nuclear has over coal, natural gas and even hydro-electric power there is still a great deal of opposition to nuclear power from both sides of the political aisle. Some environmentalists are warming up to the idea of nuclear, but most of them still have emotional knee-jerk reactions against it. The NIMBY factor is the biggest hurdle. No property owners want a nuclear power plant built anywhere near their business or home.

[Mike Blakesley]

Of course, after warnings of possible energy shortages (well before 2022) after the closures of a few coal/gas and now the nuclear plant the state just says "we'll buy it from somewhere else" when we need it.

Parts of Washington may be in the same boat. They have been buying power from power plants in our county (Colstrip) for years, but now they want out of the coal business so they have decided to end coal by 2025... never mind that they don't really seem to have a plan for where they're going to get the power they'll need in three years. Two of the Colstrip plants shut down at the end of 2020, with the other two shutting down three years from now.

Currently there is a gargantuan wind farm under construction in the north part of our county -- it's so big, it has land in THREE counties. But the amount of power it will produce when completed is dwarfed by what Colstrip produces -- 750 megawatts for the wind farm, vs. over 2000 megawatts from the coal plants. Even with the first two units shut down, those other two plants could easily generate enough power to run all the households in the state of Montana with power to spare, but thanks to the way the electrical grid is set up, we can't hook into them for our own power ... most of the power that feeds the region where I live comes from North Dakota. And of course the wind farm will only produce power when the wind is blowing, so there's that...

[Marcel Birgelen]

There is no internal combustion engine that is anywhere near 80% efficiency, let alone upwards of it. The theoretical maximum thermal efficiency for the Otto Cycle is 56% I believe.

My post was incomplete. The Otto cycle has at most about 50% energy efficiency and many manufacturers claim to be close to what's technically possible. Which is already more efficient than your average power plant, minus loss from energy transport.

But a modern, hybrid engine can be more efficient, because it can recoup energy that would've otherwise been lost as friction/heat. I've read somewhere that the practical maximum energy efficiency of the entire system can get upwards of 80%.

With the ever-increasing fuel prices and pressure to reduce both consumption and emission, if there is a future in carbon-fuel based drive systems, then it will most likely be hybrid systems.

Hydrogen (or synthetic fuels using it as a main ingredient) is definitely the way to go in the future IF technologies like directly splitting water can be developed to operate economically.

Without some significant advance in battery technology, battery-electric vehicles are not really sustainable. Taking into account the efficiency improvement and the charging losses, I think we would need to produce something like 70% more electricity if all gas/diesel vehicles were replaced with battery-electric vehicles.

There are some interesting developments in direct-splitting of hydrogen at "low" temperatures. An increasing number of catalysts is being found that allow for this. There is now a Belgian project that apparently delivered a bunch of solar panels that can split water, using nothing but solar power. While much of the technology is still under wraps, they claim to have achieved this without using any rare earth materials. The advantage of producing hydrogen directly, is that it allows for relatively easy storage and easy conversion into energy.

As for battery technology for the direct storage of electricity: There have been lots of little advancements over the last 30 or so years, but almost all high-density designs still involve lithium. I hope we'll see some major breakthrough in the near future, but I'm affraid that we're simply not blessed with the right materials on earth to do this.

Not just prejudice. While nuclear fission energy can be safe if done right, the consequences of doing it wrong are uniquely nasty, namely:

• Catastrophic malfunction of power generation reactors or infrastructure as happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
• Reprocessing (think Sellafield) or disposing of used nuclear fissile fuel is horrifically expensive, and the stuff needs to be secured and managed for centuries
• The by-products of nuclear fission can be used to make bombs, meaning that every nuclear power station is a potential geopolitical security issue

A convincing case could be made that, all factors considered, electricity generation using a nuclear fission reactor hooked to a steam turbine is preferable to doing so by burning fossil fuels, but I wouldn't agree that reluctance to embrace nuclear fission energy is pure prejudice.

I'm not fond of being "pro-nuclear" because nuclear energy certainly comes with a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. But like with anything with great power, comes great responsibility. I'm affraid we simply have little other options left and it can be much better, if we simply take the prejudice away, face the issues open-mindedly and make sure stuff is being dealt with, by competent people and organizations..

While the things you list are true problems, the sentiment is still based on prejudice. If we look at the statistics, factoring in Fukuchima, Chernobyl, etc., then nuclear power still is actually one of the safest sources of power we have, much much much safer than any fossil-fuel based solution and even like most renewable solutions. But it's a bit like flying... A lot more people die horrible deaths on the street than while flying a commercial plane, but when a plane crashes, the impact is usually pretty big.

But the reality is:

- We can't entirely depend on renewable energy right now, because we simply lack those giant batteries. It's not like we simply haven't built those yet, we don't have the technology to build them and we don't know if we will ever have the technology to do so.
- Nuclear fission is here and now, it's readily available, unlike nuclear fusion, which will be 20 years away for the foreseeable future...
- The nuclear fuel cycle has been proven. If optimized to the max with e.g. breeder reactors, it could provide for all our energy needs for the next thousands of years with currently known reserves.
- Nuclear waste, just like the entire thing, is mostly a political problem. The amount of waste that can't be repurposed is extremely small, compared to the amount of waste of most fossil fuel alternatives.
- Our climate really does have a problem. You may want to look the other way, but you're only fooling yourself. You may align with a political grouping that may have trouble accepting the truth, but that doesn't make the problem go away. Not all of it may be man-made, but that doesn't make the problem go away either and it doesn't help if we make it worse... But even if that doesn't convince you that we should stop burning stuff that has been put into the ground over billions of years: The shit needed billions of years to get there, once it's gone, it's gone, it will take quite a few years to "grow" back and we're burning it at breakneck pace.

But sadly we're far to late at the party. The last 40 or so years, we have covered nuclear power with so much red tape, it's now almost impossible to get any such project off the ground. All the while, we should've been busy with building new nuclear power plants, to replace the ageing fleet of old reactors we still have left...

[James Wyrembelski]

. It's not like we simply haven't built those yet, we don't have the technology to build them and we don't know if we will ever have the technology to do so.
.

And if we do, expect some layers of red tape similar to nuclear plants to make in not viable in order to have something else back it up.

I find it interesting that when you look at what backs up large solar and wind installations, there's usually a natural gas plant lurking behind them......nice how that all falls into place....



I just read about a new 1100 megawatt natural gas facility opening in June this year here in Michigan. Doesn't necessarily get us out of the weeds for the summer. But, what I do find curious is that we get this new gas plant from DTE while Consumers is pushing huge wind and solar farms across the rest of the state. (Why anyone wants to even bother with solar here is beyond me. We're practically under one giant cloud for most of the year and the darkest winters in the lower 48.) But I just find the connection between natural gas and green energy interesting. Why not back these up with nuclear, or you know, just build nuclear plants instead? Abundant energy? *Gasp*

[Lyle Romer]

And if we do, expect some layers of red tape similar to nuclear plants to make in not viable in order to have something else back it up.

I find it interesting that when you look at what backs up large solar and wind installations, there's usually a natural gas plant lurking behind them......nice how that all falls into place....



I just read about a new 1100 megawatt natural gas facility opening in June this year here in Michigan. Doesn't necessarily get us out of the weeds for the summer. But, what I do find curious is that we get this new gas plant from DTE while Consumers is pushing huge wind and solar farms across the rest of the state. (Why anyone wants to even bother with solar here is beyond me. We're practically under one giant cloud for most of the year and the darkest winters in the lower 48.) But I just find the connection between natural gas and green energy interesting. Why not back these up with nuclear, or you know, just build nuclear plants instead? Abundant energy? *Gasp*

I don't think people truly comprehend the land area required for significant production of wind and solar. A few years ago I did a quick calculation and determined that for FL (the "sunshine state") to go 100% solar for electric production it would take something like 2 million acres of solar panels. I can't remember but I don't think my estimate included needing more electricity to transition to electric cars.

The wind turbine installations are hideous (which is why they are always constructed in the middle of nowhere) and they make it so the land they are built over can never possibly become anything but a ranch or farm because nobody would want to live there.

And if we do, expect some layers of red tape similar to nuclear plants to make in not viable in order to have something else back it up.

I find it interesting that when you look at what backs up large solar and wind installations, there's usually a natural gas plant lurking behind them......nice how that all falls into place....



I just read about a new 1100 megawatt natural gas facility opening in June this year here in Michigan. Doesn't necessarily get us out of the weeds for the summer. But, what I do find curious is that we get this new gas plant from DTE while Consumers is pushing huge wind and solar farms across the rest of the state. (Why anyone wants to even bother with solar here is beyond me. We're practically under one giant cloud for most of the year and the darkest winters in the lower 48.) But I just find the connection between natural gas and green energy interesting. Why not back these up with nuclear, or you know, just build nuclear plants instead? Abundant energy? *Gasp*

The solar plants and wind turbine installations (we need to stop calling these things farms because neither is what one pictures when the word "farm" is used) are backed up by natural gas because a natural gas plant can instantaneously produce the amount of electricity that is demanded at a given moment. Nuclear plants are very slow to adjust output. If we went to 100% nuclear (which will never happen), you'd need battery banks or other storage in order to meet peak demand above the current output of the plant.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The solar plants and wind turbine installations (we need to stop calling these things farms because neither is what one pictures when the word "farm" is used) are backed up by natural gas because a natural gas plant can instantaneously produce the amount of electricity that is demanded at a given moment. Nuclear plants are very slow to adjust output. If we went to 100% nuclear (which will never happen), you'd need battery banks or other storage in order to meet peak demand above the current output of the plant.

Actually, you wouldn't need any gas-fired plants, if you design the system correctly.

The reason why most big nuclear power plants can't just follow the demand curve is largely out of regulations, not because they're technically not capable of doing so, or could very easily be adapted to do so...

Nuclear reactors immediately react on a change of configuration of the core. If you trigger a SCRAM for example, the output goes from whatever it was to nominal zero in just a few seconds. The same when you start pulling control rods: power levels will rise almost immediately.

Obviously, the "B-chain" (the turbine, generator, etc.) of the plant needs to be able to follow, but those are items that are rather easily upgradeable.

Ideally though, you'd probably want some plants with smaller reactors to follow peak demand. You could build plants specifically for this, with banks of smaller reactors, like the kind that've been used on submarines and air craft carriers for decades.

But you're right, something like this would never happen. It would require intelligence, insight, teamwork and decisiveness, all unfortunately incompatible with politics...

[Bobby Henderson]

I just read a news report the amount of solar panel installations are dramatically falling off due to a trade dispute case.

For many years the Chinese government has been helping its solar panel production industry "dump" panels into markets like the United States at prices lower than the cost of their production. The idea is to drive competitors out of business, then raise prices to profitable levels later. The US has responded by placing tariffs on Chinese solar panels and later increasing those tariffs to pretty high levels. The US has its own solar industry and our government is trying to take at least some steps to protect it.

The Chinese government has been doing an end run around solar tariffs by hopping its products through 4 other SE Asian countries. Lately many of the solar panels that have been installed on residential roof tops as well as some major installations for power companies were imported from these 4 countries. Now there's talk of fines and all sorts of other stuff. Companies doing roof top solar panel installations are now caught in a catch-22 situation. They're trying to buy from American companies or other legit sources, but supplies are very low and they can't fill all the orders. Costs are increasing. Overall solar panel installations are going to slow to a crawl thru the rest of 2022 into 2023 until that trade dispute court case gets resolved.

It's already difficult enough to get solar panels installed on homes in some locations (cough: California) due to stupidly unreasonable levels of bureaucratic red tape.

The wind turbine installations are hideous (which is why they are always constructed in the middle of nowhere) and they make it so the land they are built over can never possibly become anything but a ranch or farm because nobody would want to live there.

There are smaller turbines that do get installed on family farms, often by the choice of the property owner. In the rare cases a big turbine is installed on a rural property the home owner there will often get paid by the power company rather than pay an electric bill.

Oklahoma has a bunch of wind farms scattered around the state, in part because Oklahoma has a lot of wide open spaces and wind that blows all the damned time. In 2021 about 41% of the state's electricity generation came from wind power.

Regarding places where people want to live, certainly no one would want a home built under dozens of 500' tall turbines. The companies running those wind projects typically buy up all the land anyway and don't allow other people on it out of safety and security concerns. Most rural areas in the United States are losing population. Many young people who grow up in small towns move to bigger cities after high school or college. Lack of job opportunities and social life in the small towns are two critical reasons. The remaining residents continue to age. Very often any people moving into small towns are hitting retirement age; they're usually cashing out of bigger city life for something more quiet. When the local tax base shrinks it sends the town into a increasingly negative cycle. Basic services like police and fire departments, public schools and keeping streets paved end up being too costly on a per capita basis. Little towns can get try to get by relying on the county sheriff and volunteer fire departments. Elderly residents face the risks of long drives when needing medical attention. If the local school closes that will usually put the town into its final dying phase.

[Lyle Romer]

Regarding places where people want to live, certainly no one would want a home built under dozens of 500' tall turbines. The companies running those wind projects typically buy up all the land anyway and don't allow other people on it out of safety and security concerns.

It is likely different in Oklahoma and west Texas but for the large scale turbine installations I've driven past in Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota, the land beneath them is typically farm land with corn or soybeans planted below. I don't know if the company running the wind plant owns the land and leases it for farming or the farm owner leases the space for the turbines.

[Bobby Henderson]

There are wind power projects in Oklahoma that are built on land also used for crops. Normally the wind turbines are built on "unproductive" land not used for anything else. For instance, near my city, there is a big complex of wind turbines on the North edge of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. The turbines are built in columns following hilltop ridges. No one is growing crops or grazing cattle on that irregular terrain. In the case of turbines on farm land the wind power companies and land owners have to work out agreements about property access and various other issues. The main concern is they don't want any random people farting around near the base of those towers. Lots of people go hunting, fishing, riding horses or ATV and doing all sorts of other stuff on rural property. Others trespass on rural property with bad motives, like theft, vandalism or worse acts. From what I understand, many of these wind turbine "farms" have a lot of video surveillance gear installed. It's not going to be easy for anyone to go snooping around a bunch of turbines without being noticed.

[Harold Hallikainen]

Rooftop solar is also interesting. We bought a house a year ago with 3.3 kW of rooftop solar. There's probably room on the south facing slope of the roof to add another few kW. Then there's also the north facing slope which has sun, but not as much. Right now, we are producing about the same number of kWh per day that we use. In the past few months, we've generated about 7 kWh excess each month which is "banked" by the power company for when consumption goes up (air conditioning in July when humidity goes up so our evaporative cooler does not do the job) or in the winter when there is less daylight.

Over the year, we have produced 5,325 kWh and consumed 9,652 kWh. Production is averaging 55% of consumption. The peak production was 170% of consumption, and the minimum production was 10.5% of consumption. A spreadsheet with graphs of % from solar versus average temperature and production and consumption over time (average kW over day). These are at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing . The data is pulled from utility kWh meters, so it does not include kW at any particular time. I suspect that here in Arizona, consumption over time is close to solar generation over time, but perhaps consumption starts and ends a couple hours later than generation. Most residential consumption here is probably for cooling. The change to LED lighting and solid state electronics should vastly decreas residential power consumption. However, looking at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/de...20since%202010. , I see that per capita consumption has increased since 1960 with a 5% drop since 2010. Annual per capita electricity sales in 1960 were about 1,000 kWh per person in 1960 and 4,500 in 2020. Even the lowest states (New York, CA, Hawaii) have doubled since 1960. The graphs are retail electricity sales, so they do not include consumption offset by rooftop solar. I am surprised that consumption has increased so much since 1960. We now have much more efficient lighting and electronics. I suspect the increase is due to the increased popularity of air conditioning.

Our house was built in 1953. It has three bedrooms and probably housed four people. Today, there are just two of us in the house, so our 9,652 kWh consumption for the year would be 4,826 annual kWh per capita right around the current US average. When we bought the house, the evaporative cooler was not working, but it is now (and doing a great job). So, I suspect the consumption will be lower over the next year. Adding in the solar offset, our net from the power company was 4,327 kWh or 2,164 kWh annual per capita.

We have more than enough roof space for solar to fully offset our electricity consumption. I suspect that is true of a lot of single family homes, but clearly not all. We will be adding more solar panels in the near future.

If we could produce 50% to 100% of residential electricity consumption on the roofs of those residences, we could really cut down on large generation plants.

Harold

[Mike Blakesley]

The wind turbine installations are hideous (which is why they are always constructed in the middle of nowhere) and they make it so the land they are built over can never possibly become anything but a ranch or farm because nobody would want to live there.

The wind installation being built near here says that their facility has a lifespan of 20 to 30 years and they agree to repurpose the land back to its original state after decommissioning the wind project. Of course, the coal plant owners said the same thing 40 years ago when they were building our nearby coal-fired plants and they are currently trying to weasel out of paying for the cleanup which is estimated to cost in the hundreds of millions.

[Frank Cox]

A major problem in Saskatchewan (and an even larger problem in Alberta) is what they call "orphan wells", abandoned oil wells where the owners have either disappeared or declared bankruptcy. All of the oil production companies were supposed to be paying into an Orphan Wells Fund that was intended to pay the costs of clean-up when that sort of thing happened, but of course the levies paid into the fund are nowhere near the actual cost of the clean-ups that are needed.

The government is currently taking a "lets defer this stuff and hope nothing bad happens" approach.

[Van Dalton]

Parts of Washington may be in the same boat. They have been buying power from power plants in our county (Colstrip) for years, but now they want out of the coal business so they have decided to end coal by 2025... never mind that they don't really seem to have a plan for where they're going to get the power they'll need in three years.

Seriously? That's a new one on me. So you mean with the dams across the Columbia, all the ugly-ass, failure-prone windmills east of the Cascades and Whoops II, we're importing power?

[Mike Blakesley]

Yes, Washington has been buying power from Colstrip, Montana for decades, and when the above mentioned wind farm is online, you’ll be buying that power, too. It’ll be shipped over the same transmission lines.