RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

This isn't a sarcastic question as I actually lean toward nuclear myself.

But should there be a concern over nuclear waste?

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

Agree, but it is a piece of the puzzle. We have too many people that believe their is one solution. Options is always the best path, in the US we used to de-centralize and not fall into the single point of failure trap. I see a movement to abandon that and move to centralized pretty much everything.

I am optimistic about edge computing, maybe that can get us back to using options that work appropriate to the area, anot one global or nationalistic push for one solution. This is a danger of the Govt allowing monopolies and getting involved in the market.

---

Nothing wrong with decentralized power generation.

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

1. You can still run cattle etc. on you land with windmills on it.

2. Land availability is not a limiting factor for solar power.

The main problem with both wind and solar is storage, not capacity.

With electric cars, the power source is the limiting factor. Electricity is far superior to internal combustion, but the battery technology is not there yet to make it work at large scale.

---

I disagree with you on 2 of the 3.

Land availability is not an issue, in certain areas. Out west, maybe. Go ride the trains in Germany with the solar panels stuck in every other field and tell me space is not limiting. In addition, do you still want to have 1000s of acres of solar panels along the landscape? That doesn't mess with the land?

Electric is superior in some uses, we have seen that in rail and mining for decades. But to make EVs the winner based on carbon output and that not take into consideration the other environmental impacts is BS. EVs also have range and recharging issues, not to mention that they are fascist, only the wealthy can afford. : )

I am all for options, in my field I have championed mobility options for years. We need all of it, not picking winners and losers. That thing that gets overlooked in all this is individuals. Provide the options, let people choose what is best for their families. This picking one tech and saying it is the answer is BS. It is marketing & business plans choosing our future, not based on people's needs. We need a combination of all of it, but I want to choose what is best for me, not you, Trump or AOC

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

1. You can still run cattle etc. on you land with windmills on it.

2. Land availability is not a limiting factor for solar power.

The main problem with both wind and solar is storage, not capacity.

With electric cars, the power source is the limiting factor. Electricity is far superior to internal combustion, but the battery technology is not there yet to make it work at large scale.

---

I disagree with you on 2 of the 3.

Land availability is not an issue, in certain areas. Out west, maybe. Go ride the trains in Germany with the solar panels stuck in every other field and tell me space is not limiting. In addition, do you still want to have 1000s of acres of solar panels along the landscape? That doesn't mess with the land?

Electric is superior in some uses, we have seen that in rail and mining for decades. But to make EVs the winner based on carbon output and that not take into consideration the other environmental impacts is BS. EVs also have range and recharging issues, not to mention that they are fascist, only the wealthy can afford. : )

I am all for options, in my field I have championed mobility options for years. We need all of it, not picking winners and losers. That thing that gets overlooked in all this is individuals. Provide the options, let people choose what is best for their families. This picking one tech and saying it is the answer is BS. It is marketing & business plans choosing our future, not based on people's needs. We need a combination of all of it, but I want to choose what is best for me, not you, Trump or AOC

---

We are talking about the United States, not Germany. Space is not a limiting factor for solar (nor are solar panels the only means of generating solar power, maybe not even the best means).

When I say that electric cars are far superior to internal combustion engines, I am talking about performance and efficiency. This is not really debatable. However, the electricity delivery system for electric vehicles is not yet good enough to take advantage of that superior performance and efficiency at large scale.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

liquid sodium cooling systems may be the way forward

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

1. You can still run cattle etc. on you land with windmills on it.

2. Land availability is not a limiting factor for solar power.

The main problem with both wind and solar is storage, not capacity.

With electric cars, the power source is the limiting factor. Electricity is far superior to internal combustion, but the battery technology is not there yet to make it work at large scale.

---

I disagree with you on 2 of the 3.

Land availability is not an issue, in certain areas. Out west, maybe. Go ride the trains in Germany with the solar panels stuck in every other field and tell me space is not limiting. In addition, do you still want to have 1000s of acres of solar panels along the landscape? That doesn't mess with the land?

Electric is superior in some uses, we have seen that in rail and mining for decades. But to make EVs the winner based on carbon output and that not take into consideration the other environmental impacts is BS. EVs also have range and recharging issues, not to mention that they are fascist, only the wealthy can afford. : )

I am all for options, in my field I have championed mobility options for years. We need all of it, not picking winners and losers. That thing that gets overlooked in all this is individuals. Provide the options, let people choose what is best for their families. This picking one tech and saying it is the answer is BS. It is marketing & business plans choosing our future, not based on people's needs. We need a combination of all of it, but I want to choose what is best for me, not you, Trump or AOC

---

We are talking about the United States, not Germany. Space is not a limiting factor for solar (nor are solar panels the only means of generating solar power, maybe not even the best means).

When I say that electric cars are far superior to internal combustion engines, I am talking about performance and efficiency. This is not really debatable. However, the electricity delivery system for electric vehicles is not yet good enough to take advantage of that superior performance and efficiency at large scale.

---

You saying it is not debatable doesn't make it so.

EVs have serious limitations in range, storage and power source. We looked into inductive charging, the transmission loss was too great, the cost too high and way too invasive (tearing up roads). The only use case we found was for fleet delivery IF space was at a premium. Otherwise inductive pads were not worth it.

For recharging, it is the time and storage capabilities, not to mention if this is a green thing the power is being generated by coal or LNG. Renewables are not going to be able to supply the amounts needed and according to the Utility Companies I have talked to the grid is not capable of handling what they want. In the words of one Energy Exec - No one talked to us about this before going forward!

I have a Volt. I am not against EVs. I have known about them since I was a kid, my Grandfather drove trains and explained how a locomotive is powered. EVs have incredible torque, which is why locomotives and mining uses them. But, they are not the panacea they are being made out to be. Just my view as I actually tried to implement in the real world and do not see it in our lifetimes.

As an FYI you basically can't buy an EV right now.

I bought a business that is going to require some driving I don't want to do with my SRT GC. Been trying to buy an i4 M50, Volvo XC40 Recharge, F150 Lightning or anything that is EV that doesn't suck. Good luck. You can order and have it in 2023 but the demand really is that strong right now.

nein51 said:

---

As an FYI you basically can't buy an EV right now.

I bought a business that is going to require some driving I don't want to do with my SRT GC. Been trying to buy an i4 M50, Volvo XC40 Recharge, F150 Lightning or anything that is EV that doesn't suck. Good luck. You can order and have it in 2023 but the demand really is that strong right now.

---

Now may not be the time, the Lightnings and other trucks I know about are in the shop more than on the road. Gonna take a couple of generations of tech to get reliability up to Auto grade. I believe we have 2 more generations of ICEs before EVs get close to 50% of the market. Just speculation, but it is harder to get this stuff out at scale, with the 365/24/7 reliability ICEs give you right now for less money.

Rawhide said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

This isn't a sarcastic question as I actually lean toward nuclear myself.

But should there be a concern over nuclear waste?

---

No. Move the Capitol to Omaha and store the waste in D.C.

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

liquid sodium cooling systems may be the way forward

---

I like that. Personally, I think we should be focused more on mitigation and resiliency than trying to change or undo climate change. Ideas like this allow us to move forward. Nice addition...

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

1. You can still run cattle etc. on you land with windmills on it.

2. Land availability is not a limiting factor for solar power.

The main problem with both wind and solar is storage, not capacity.

With electric cars, the power source is the limiting factor. Electricity is far superior to internal combustion, but the battery technology is not there yet to make it work at large scale.

---

I disagree with you on 2 of the 3.

Land availability is not an issue, in certain areas. Out west, maybe. Go ride the trains in Germany with the solar panels stuck in every other field and tell me space is not limiting. In addition, do you still want to have 1000s of acres of solar panels along the landscape? That doesn't mess with the land?

Electric is superior in some uses, we have seen that in rail and mining for decades. But to make EVs the winner based on carbon output and that not take into consideration the other environmental impacts is BS. EVs also have range and recharging issues, not to mention that they are fascist, only the wealthy can afford. : )

I am all for options, in my field I have championed mobility options for years. We need all of it, not picking winners and losers. That thing that gets overlooked in all this is individuals. Provide the options, let people choose what is best for their families. This picking one tech and saying it is the answer is BS. It is marketing & business plans choosing our future, not based on people's needs. We need a combination of all of it, but I want to choose what is best for me, not you, Trump or AOC

---

We are talking about the United States, not Germany. Space is not a limiting factor for solar (nor are solar panels the only means of generating solar power, maybe not even the best means).

When I say that electric cars are far superior to internal combustion engines, I am talking about performance and efficiency. This is not really debatable. However, the electricity delivery system for electric vehicles is not yet good enough to take advantage of that superior performance and efficiency at large scale.

---

You saying it is not debatable doesn't make it so.

EVs have serious limitations in range, storage and power source. We looked into inductive charging, the transmission loss was too great, the cost too high and way too invasive (tearing up roads). The only use case we found was for fleet delivery IF space was at a premium. Otherwise inductive pads were not worth it.

For recharging, it is the time and storage capabilities, not to mention if this is a green thing the power is being generated by coal or LNG. Renewables are not going to be able to supply the amounts needed and according to the Utility Companies I have talked to the grid is not capable of handling what they want. In the words of one Energy Exec - No one talked to us about this before going forward!

I have a Volt. I am not against EVs. I have known about them since I was a kid, my Grandfather drove trains and explained how a locomotive is powered. EVs have incredible torque, which is why locomotives and mining uses them. But, they are not the panacea they are being made out to be. Just my view as I actually tried to implement in the real world and do not see it in our lifetimes.

---

You're pretty much expanding on my point about power source.

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

1. You can still run cattle etc. on you land with windmills on it.

2. Land availability is not a limiting factor for solar power.

The main problem with both wind and solar is storage, not capacity.

With electric cars, the power source is the limiting factor. Electricity is far superior to internal combustion, but the battery technology is not there yet to make it work at large scale.

---

I disagree with you on 2 of the 3.

Land availability is not an issue, in certain areas. Out west, maybe. Go ride the trains in Germany with the solar panels stuck in every other field and tell me space is not limiting. In addition, do you still want to have 1000s of acres of solar panels along the landscape? That doesn't mess with the land?

Electric is superior in some uses, we have seen that in rail and mining for decades. But to make EVs the winner based on carbon output and that not take into consideration the other environmental impacts is BS. EVs also have range and recharging issues, not to mention that they are fascist, only the wealthy can afford. : )

I am all for options, in my field I have championed mobility options for years. We need all of it, not picking winners and losers. That thing that gets overlooked in all this is individuals. Provide the options, let people choose what is best for their families. This picking one tech and saying it is the answer is BS. It is marketing & business plans choosing our future, not based on people's needs. We need a combination of all of it, but I want to choose what is best for me, not you, Trump or AOC

---

We are talking about the United States, not Germany. Space is not a limiting factor for solar (nor are solar panels the only means of generating solar power, maybe not even the best means).

When I say that electric cars are far superior to internal combustion engines, I am talking about performance and efficiency. This is not really debatable. However, the electricity delivery system for electric vehicles is not yet good enough to take advantage of that superior performance and efficiency at large scale.

---

You saying it is not debatable doesn't make it so.

EVs have serious limitations in range, storage and power source. We looked into inductive charging, the transmission loss was too great, the cost too high and way too invasive (tearing up roads). The only use case we found was for fleet delivery IF space was at a premium. Otherwise inductive pads were not worth it.

For recharging, it is the time and storage capabilities, not to mention if this is a green thing the power is being generated by coal or LNG. Renewables are not going to be able to supply the amounts needed and according to the Utility Companies I have talked to the grid is not capable of handling what they want. In the words of one Energy Exec - No one talked to us about this before going forward!

I have a Volt. I am not against EVs. I have known about them since I was a kid, my Grandfather drove trains and explained how a locomotive is powered. EVs have incredible torque, which is why locomotives and mining uses them. But, they are not the panacea they are being made out to be. Just my view as I actually tried to implement in the real world and do not see it in our lifetimes.

---

You're pretty much expanding on my point about power source.

---

Yeah, ma I allowed to agree on some points? Or do I have to take the countrrposition to every point. I can't keep up...

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

As an FYI you basically can't buy an EV right now.

I bought a business that is going to require some driving I don't want to do with my SRT GC. Been trying to buy an i4 M50, Volvo XC40 Recharge, F150 Lightning or anything that is EV that doesn't suck. Good luck. You can order and have it in 2023 but the demand really is that strong right now.

---

Now may not be the time, the Lightnings and other trucks I know about are in the shop more than on the road. Gonna take a couple of generations of tech to get reliability up to Auto grade. I believe we have 2 more generations of ICEs before EVs get close to 50% of the market. Just speculation, but it is harder to get this stuff out at scale, with the 365/24/7 reliability ICEs give you right now for less money.

---

My job is selling tools in repair shops. Because of that I'm intimately familiar with what breaks.

For instance on a Tesla I can tell you they have glass roof issues.

The Fords are too new for issues. Same for Rivian.

I would trust a new Lightning way more than I would trust an eco boost F-150 that eats turbos or a 3.6 Ram which are experiencing massive issues with cams.

nein51 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

As an FYI you basically can't buy an EV right now.

I bought a business that is going to require some driving I don't want to do with my SRT GC. Been trying to buy an i4 M50, Volvo XC40 Recharge, F150 Lightning or anything that is EV that doesn't suck. Good luck. You can order and have it in 2023 but the demand really is that strong right now.

---

Now may not be the time, the Lightnings and other trucks I know about are in the shop more than on the road. Gonna take a couple of generations of tech to get reliability up to Auto grade. I believe we have 2 more generations of ICEs before EVs get close to 50% of the market. Just speculation, but it is harder to get this stuff out at scale, with the 365/24/7 reliability ICEs give you right now for less money.

---

My job is selling tools in repair shops. Because of that I'm intimately familiar with what breaks.

For instance on a Tesla I can tell you they have glass roof issues.

The Fords are too new for issues. Same for Rivian.

I would trust a new Lightning way more than I would trust an eco boost F-150 that eats turbos or a 3.6 Ram which are experiencing massive issues with cams.

---

1st generations are usually suspect. I have done work on the development side, products usually get better each iteration. I like the Silverado EV.

As a rule you should never, ever buy the first model year of any vehicle. Haven't seen a Silverado EV in person yet. They didn't have one at the auto show when I was there.

Looks like Fall 2023 on them btw

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

Wait the name of the place is blocked on the site? ***ushima is the name…

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

1. You can still run cattle etc. on you land with windmills on it.

2. Land availability is not a limiting factor for solar power.

The main problem with both wind and solar is storage, not capacity.

With electric cars, the power source is the limiting factor. Electricity is far superior to internal combustion, but the battery technology is not there yet to make it work at large scale.

---

I disagree with you on 2 of the 3.

Land availability is not an issue, in certain areas. Out west, maybe. Go ride the trains in Germany with the solar panels stuck in every other field and tell me space is not limiting. In addition, do you still want to have 1000s of acres of solar panels along the landscape? That doesn't mess with the land?

Electric is superior in some uses, we have seen that in rail and mining for decades. But to make EVs the winner based on carbon output and that not take into consideration the other environmental impacts is BS. EVs also have range and recharging issues, not to mention that they are fascist, only the wealthy can afford. : )

I am all for options, in my field I have championed mobility options for years. We need all of it, not picking winners and losers. That thing that gets overlooked in all this is individuals. Provide the options, let people choose what is best for their families. This picking one tech and saying it is the answer is BS. It is marketing & business plans choosing our future, not based on people's needs. We need a combination of all of it, but I want to choose what is best for me, not you, Trump or AOC

---

We are talking about the United States, not Germany. Space is not a limiting factor for solar (nor are solar panels the only means of generating solar power, maybe not even the best means).

When I say that electric cars are far superior to internal combustion engines, I am talking about performance and efficiency. This is not really debatable. However, the electricity delivery system for electric vehicles is not yet good enough to take advantage of that superior performance and efficiency at large scale.

---

You saying it is not debatable doesn't make it so.

EVs have serious limitations in range, storage and power source. We looked into inductive charging, the transmission loss was too great, the cost too high and way too invasive (tearing up roads). The only use case we found was for fleet delivery IF space was at a premium. Otherwise inductive pads were not worth it.

For recharging, it is the time and storage capabilities, not to mention if this is a green thing the power is being generated by coal or LNG. Renewables are not going to be able to supply the amounts needed and according to the Utility Companies I have talked to the grid is not capable of handling what they want. In the words of one Energy Exec - No one talked to us about this before going forward!

I have a Volt. I am not against EVs. I have known about them since I was a kid, my Grandfather drove trains and explained how a locomotive is powered. EVs have incredible torque, which is why locomotives and mining uses them. But, they are not the panacea they are being made out to be. Just my view as I actually tried to implement in the real world and do not see it in our lifetimes.

---

You're pretty much expanding on my point about power source.

---

Yeah, ma I allowed to agree on some points? Or do I have to take the countrrposition to every point. I can't keep up...

---

Following your comment that my saying it wasn't debatable didn't make it so I was expecting you to debate it rather than expand on it!

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

There is some very good work being done on small scale nuclear.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

There is some very good work being done on small scale nuclear.

---

Rick Perry was talking about that the other day.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

There is some very good work being done on small scale nuclear.

---

Rick Perry was talking about that the other day.

---

Must have been one of the top two things on his mind...

It's a feature, not a bug

And yes they are idiots

quash said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

There is some very good work being done on small scale nuclear.

---

Rick Perry was talking about that the other day.

---

Must have been one of the top two things on his mind...

---

Bazinga!

I'm not sure we've hit the right solution for solar yet. Solar farms seem to make the least sense of all, for reasons related to the nuclear security issues - the places where solar panels don't pay too much of a premium for land use are basically desert and mountains in the southern US, which is too far from too much of the population to bear transmission costs. I have read that, for example, it would take a solar farm the size of Ohio to power New York City....given the latitude of New York city and the proximity a wind farm would have to be to NYC. So solar, as currently conceived in large panel farms, seems to only make sense for Arizona, Nevada, etc.....

The most immediate impact solar could make is to make incremental reductions in residential demand....rooftops are unusable for any other purpose and we currently deal with the heat generated by sunshine hitting roofs with tons of insulation. Better to convert that solar energy into power and achieve incremental reductions in per home demand on the grid. But homeowners don't have a very good PAC to lobby congress, so all the big energy companies get the soalr farms, no matter how goofy the project might be. There's a small farm down near our quail lease in south Texas....50mi as the crow flies from McAllen. Got tore up in a hurricane a three years ago and is just now back on line. Tells me it was not economical to fix on it's own revenue and had to wait on fiscal support from government, and/or a new company to purchase the (dilapidated) asset at distressed pricing. We are a long way from solar pulling its own weight, and the only way it will ever happen is if we scale back expectations rather dramatically. It still makes no sense whatsoever for anything other at this time beyond recharging batteries to open gates & sling corn from feeders out at the ranch (the only two marketable uses which currently do not require govt subsidy.)

While we spend another few decades figuring all this stuff out, we could use a few dozen coal plants and tens of thousands of new wells in the various shale formations around the country......

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

There is some very good work being done on small scale nuclear.

---

Rick Perry was talking about that the other day.

---

Must have been one of the top two things on his mind...

---

Bazinga!

I'm not sure we've hit the right solution for solar yet. Solar farms seem to make the least sense of all, for reasons related to the nuclear security issues - the places where solar panels don't pay too much of a premium for land use are basically desert and mountains in the southern US, which is too far from too much of the population to bear transmission costs. I have read that, for example, it would take a solar farm the size of Ohio to power New York City....given the latitude of New York city and the proximity a wind farm would have to be to NYC. So solar, as currently conceived in large panel farms, seems to only make sense for Arizona, Nevada, etc.....

The most immediate impact solar could make is to make incremental reductions in residential demand....rooftops are unusable for any other purpose and we currently deal with the heat generated by sunshine hitting roofs with tons of insulation. Better to convert that solar energy into power and achieve incremental reductions in per home demand on the grid. But homeowners don't have a very good PAC to lobby congress, so all the big energy companies get the soalr farms, no matter how goofy the project might be. There's a small farm down near our quail lease in south Texas....50mi as the crow flies from McAllen. Got tore up in a hurricane a three years ago and is just now back on line. Tells me it was not economical to fix on it's own revenue and had to wait on fiscal support from government, and/or a new company to purchase the (dilapidated) asset at distressed pricing. We are a long way from solar pulling its own weight, and the only way it will ever happen is if we scale back expectations rather dramatically. It still makes no sense whatsoever for anything other at this time beyond recharging batteries to open gates & sling corn from feeders out at the ranch (the only two marketable uses which currently do not require govt subsidy.)

While we spend another few decades figuring all this stuff out, we could use a few dozen coal plants and tens of thousands of new wells in the various shale formations around the country......

---

Depending on your annual cloud cover solar has become a terrific microgrid solution. Incremental gains in what a panel can produce, bigger gains in battery storage, and a ****ing downpour of new low-draw devices.

Germany will restart coal-fired power plants and offer incentives for companies to use less natural gas after Russia moved to cut gas flows to Europe https://t.co/NtDVBsrRfs

— Brit Hume (@brithume) June 19, 2022

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

There is some very good work being done on small scale nuclear.

---

Rick Perry was talking about that the other day.

---

Must have been one of the top two things on his mind...

---

Bazinga!

I'm not sure we've hit the right solution for solar yet. Solar farms seem to make the least sense of all, for reasons related to the nuclear security issues - the places where solar panels don't pay too much of a premium for land use are basically desert and mountains in the southern US, which is too far from too much of the population to bear transmission costs. I have read that, for example, it would take a solar farm the size of Ohio to power New York City....given the latitude of New York city and the proximity a wind farm would have to be to NYC. So solar, as currently conceived in large panel farms, seems to only make sense for Arizona, Nevada, etc.....

The most immediate impact solar could make is to make incremental reductions in residential demand....rooftops are unusable for any other purpose and we currently deal with the heat generated by sunshine hitting roofs with tons of insulation. Better to convert that solar energy into power and achieve incremental reductions in per home demand on the grid. But homeowners don't have a very good PAC to lobby congress, so all the big energy companies get the soalr farms, no matter how goofy the project might be. There's a small farm down near our quail lease in south Texas....50mi as the crow flies from McAllen. Got tore up in a hurricane a three years ago and is just now back on line. Tells me it was not economical to fix on it's own revenue and had to wait on fiscal support from government, and/or a new company to purchase the (dilapidated) asset at distressed pricing. We are a long way from solar pulling its own weight, and the only way it will ever happen is if we scale back expectations rather dramatically. It still makes no sense whatsoever for anything other at this time beyond recharging batteries to open gates & sling corn from feeders out at the ranch (the only two marketable uses which currently do not require govt subsidy.)

While we spend another few decades figuring all this stuff out, we could use a few dozen coal plants and tens of thousands of new wells in the various shale formations around the country......

---

Depending on your annual cloud cover solar has become a terrific microgrid solution. Incremental gains in what a panel can produce, bigger gains in battery storage, and a ****ing downpour of new low-draw devices.

---

No one said not to do solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, hydro. We need them all plus LNG and coal

$6 gallon for gas, its the fault of <checks notes> the religious right...

Or this is just a very,very, very bad impression of George Carlin.

“The religious right are responsible for the high gas prices.” She gets her information from @RBReich… pic.twitter.com/sM3war3Sx3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 19, 2022

We just need Doc Brown to invent a solar technology where the panel only needs to be about as big as a silver dollar. The small solar panel could be mounted on the roof of the new Delorean and power the flux capacitor in order to generate the 1.21 Gigawatts required for time travel.

Then we could go back and prevent Biden's parents from ever meeting

Jack Bauer said:

---

$6 gallon for gas, its the fault of <checks notes> the religious right...

Or this is just a very,very, very bad impression of George Carlin.

“The religious right are responsible for the high gas prices.” She gets her information from @RBReich… pic.twitter.com/sM3war3Sx3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 19, 2022

---

Everyone else's fault......but hers.

Millions more ....identical to this charming lady .




Reality is coming to breakfast at long last .

Jack Bauer said:

---

$6 gallon for gas, its the fault of <checks notes> the religious right...

Or this is just a very,very, very bad impression of George Carlin.

“The religious right are responsible for the high gas prices.” She gets her information from @RBReich… pic.twitter.com/sM3war3Sx3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 19, 2022

---

gets her info from people who own beach houses but scream global warming while flying personal jets all over the world

Again, it all breaks down by jersey color. Blue calls it corporate greed, Red calls it political ill will.

It's the market. The world produces 400 million bbl/day less than it uses at the moment. And US producers get more on the international market.

Jack Bauer said:

---

$6 gallon for gas, its the fault of <checks notes> the religious right...

Or this is just a very,very, very bad impression of George Carlin.

“The religious right are responsible for the high gas prices.” She gets her information from @RBReich… pic.twitter.com/sM3war3Sx3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 19, 2022

---

is this quash?
makes about as much sense as quash.... probably more sense than quash

A move to solar energy will greatly benefit China, who dominates the market for both production and the raw materials for it. Are we sure "the Big Guy" isn't getting kickbacks? Hunter sell any more $500,000 paintings lately?

and what's the plan for all these solar panels and wind mills at the end of their serviceable life?

whiterock said:

---

and what's the plan for all these solar panels and wind mills at the end of their serviceable life?

---

There is none, it is a knee-jerk reaction to the latest emergency.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

and what's the plan for all these solar panels and wind mills at the end of their serviceable life?

---

There is none, it is a knee-jerk reaction to the latest emergency.

---

if they were made to BE the roof as well as a solar power generator, it wouldn't matter if they no longer generated a charge. They could just be the roofing material. Disposal in place as part of a long term asset.