[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/batteries-challenge-natural-gas-elecric-power-generation-11620236583?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR17X6Ec2WWtwFSmCKgPXdaVrerDXhkFcDrtWpfP6iYqVSv4lujdQI0Vbm4]https://www.wsj.com/artic…pfP6iYqVSv4lujdQI0Vbm4[/link]

[h1]Natural Gas, Americas No. 1 Power Source, Already Has a New Challenger: Batteries[/h1] [h2]A decade after the fracking boom took off, the fuel faces disruption by a new combination on the electric grid: renewable energy and electricity storage[/h2]

A decade ago, [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-shift-how-natural-gas-and-renewables-dethroned-king-coal-1512043200?mod=article_inline]natural gas displaced coal[/link] as Americas top electric-power source, as fracking unlocked cheap quantities of the fuel. Now, in quick succession, natural gas finds itself threatened with the same kind of disruption, only this time from [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-battery-is-ready-to-power-the-world-11612551578]cost-effective batteries charged with wind and solar energy[/link].
 
Natural-gas-fired electricity represented 38% of U.S. generation in 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, and it supplies round-the-clock electricity as well as bursts during peak demand. Wind and solar generators have gained substantial market share, and as battery costs fall, batteries paired with that green power are beginning to step into those roles by storing inexpensive green energy and discharging it after the sun falls or the wind dies.
 
Battery storage remains less than 1% of Americas electricity market and so far draws power principally from solar generators, whose output is fairly predictable and easier to augment with storage. But the combination of batteries and renewable energy is threatening to upend billions of dollars in natural-gas investments, raising concerns about whether power plants built in the past 10 yearsfinanced with the expectation that they would run for decadeswill become stranded assets, facilities that retire before they pay for themselves.

[/QUOTE]
 

[btomba_77]

[h1]A Really Bad Week for the Fossil Fuel Industry[/h1]  
[link=https://greenthatlife.com/fossil-fuel-industry-under-fire/]Sara Goddard[/link] looks at the recent pile of bad stories for the fossil fuel industry (climate activists on Exxon board, Dutch court ruling against Shell, Biden pushing wind energy, ending Alaska drilling leases, Ford GM’s full embrace of EVs) and asks ….

[b]A Fossil Fuel Industry Under Fire. Will it Last?

[/b]

Wow. All this sounds hopeful for the future of the planet. Well, not so fast. Yes, the fossil fuel industry is on its heels, scrambling to pivot within this changing landscape. There have even been tentative forays into clean energy investments, but significant change has been slow, slow, slow.
 
In fact, it seems that the industry is more focused on shape-shifting its operations into other, equally damaging products. In their desperate search for new markets, oil companies are now [link=https://greenthatlife.com/plastic-production-surge-looms/]expanding into plastic production[/link], with plastic production expected to quadruple by 2060. Indeed, the [link=https://www.minderoo.org/plastic-waste-makers-index/]main polymers producer[/link] generating single-use plastic waste is, you guessed it, ExxonMobil.
 
 
The industrys false narrative has also been updated to slot neatly into our new climate-focused environment. Instead of a climate-denial focus, fossil fuel companies now promote a climate-friendly story, for instance, of [link=https://www.desmog.com/2021/04/26/fossil-fuel-companies-promoting-lower-carbon-responsibly-sourced-oil-and-gas/]responsibly sourced[/link] and [link=https://greenthatlife.com/surprising-greenwashing-examples/]clean[/link] natural gas.
 

[/QUOTE]
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/06/02/nuclear-power-demonstration-plant-to-be-built-in-wyoming/]https://cowboystatedaily….o-be-built-in-wyoming/[/link]

[b]Gov Gordon, Bill Gates Announce Wyoming Chosen As Site For Next Generation Nuclear Power Plant[/b]

One of Wyomings retiring coal-fired power plants could be the home to a nuclear power demonstration plant, Gov. Mark Gordon and other officials announced Wednesday.

Gordon, joined by officials with TerraPower and Rocky Mountain Power, announced they are working to build a Natrium reactor demonstration plant in Wyoming that will use uranium produced by the state.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-04/solar-jobs-2021-how-china-beat-u-s-to-become-world-s-solar-champion?srnd=premium]How China Beat the U.S. to Become World’s Undisputed Solar Champion[/link]
 
 
China went all in on solar manufacturing and now produces three-quarters of the worlds supply.
 

[clickpenguin_460]

Dirty

[btomba_77]

[h1][b]Judge Rejects Trump-Era Permits for Alaska Oil Project[/b][/h1]  
A federal judge on Wednesday threw out the permits for a controversial oil project planned for Alaskas North Slope, faulting the way the federal government had assessed its environmental impact, including how it might harm polar bears, the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/18/biden-climate-willow-project/]Washington Post[/link] reports.
 
 
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/climate/alaska-willow-oil.html]New York Times[/link]: The multibillion-dollar plan, known as Willow, by the oil giant ConocoPhillips had been approved by the Trump administration and legally backed by the Biden administration. Environmental groups sued, arguing that the federal government had failed to take into account the effects that drilling would have on wildlife and that the burning of the oil would have on global warming.
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

For some reason Texas rejects accepting and storing nuclear waste. Don’t they realize we need more nuclear plants and therefore a storage site for the spent fuel, past and future?
 
If even Texas and Nevada won’t accept spent nuclear fuel, what is the future of nuclear?
 
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/09/15/nuclear-waste-texas/]https://www.washingtonpos…5/nuclear-waste-texas/[/link]

A private company has won federal approval to build an expansive nuclear waste site in Texas, even as residents, state lawmakers, environmentalists and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) rail against it.
 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Monday issued a license for Andrews, Tex.-based Interim Storage Partners to store as much as 5,000 metric tons of radioactive waste. Its one of two proposed storage sites the other is in southeastern New Mexico that has been under agency review for several years.
 
The approval opens a new front in a decades-long battle to find a home for 85,000 tons of nuclear waste accumulating at dozens of nuclear power plants across the country. Fears about the dangers of nuclear material, which scientists say remains hazardous to humans for many years, have stifled plans to build repositories, including a proposed waste dump in Nevadas Yucca Mountain that was shelved by President Barack Obama.

Texas will not become Americas nuclear waste dumping ground, Abbott tweeted Tuesday.
 
In a [link=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-036.pdf]news release[/link] this week, the NRC said the proposal passed its extensive reviews for environmental impact, technical safety and security. The canisters that will contain the waste must also meet federal standards for protecting against leakage.
 
Interim Storage Partners said in a statement that the planned facility satisfies all environmental, health, and safety requirements without negative impact to nearby residents or existing industries.

 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/27/steven-guilbeault-environment-minister-canada/]https://www.washingtonpos…nment-minister-canada/[/link]

Canada naming a former Greenpeace activist as Environment Minister ahead of Glasgow climate conference.

[b]Trudeau picks ex-Greenpeace activist dubbed Green Jesus as climate chief, angering Canadas oil-rich west[/b][/h1]

Steven Guilbeault, the new minister, worked for environment advocacy groups including Greenpeace for more than a decade before entering politics. Nicknamed the Green Jesus of Montreal by Quebec newspaper La Presse, he [link=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/greenpeace-activists-scale-cn-tower-1.262071]once scaled[/link] Torontos CN Tower to unveil a banner that denounced Canada and then-president George W. Bush as climate killers.
 
Putting an activist into a role like this really does signal that the Trudeau government is intensifying its commitment to action on climate change and energy transition, said Lisa Young, a political scientist at the University of Calgary.
 
Guilbeaults appointment comes a month after Trudeaus government [link=https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trudeau-pledges-cut-canadas-oil-emissions-even-country-keeps-pumping-more-2021-09-13/]released[/link] aggressive oil-sector emissions targets. Canada is the worlds fourth-biggest oil producer.

[/QUOTE]
 

[btomba_77]

[b]US renewable energy see growth nearly quadruples over the decade[/b]
 
[b]Solar power grew [/b]the most (by 23 times what it was in 2011), and wind power almost tripled, [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/11/09/renewable-energy-solar-wind-biden/?itid=lk_inline_manual_12]a new report found[/link].
[b]Three states[/b]  Iowa, North Dakota and Kansas now generate at least half the amount of electricity they use from wind and solar.
[b]What does this mean?[/b] Renewable energy is on track to meet current U.S. electricity demands by 2035, if it keeps growing at the same pace.  

[kayla.meyer_144]

A “windmill” in the ocean attached to an anchored ship that converts tidal movement into electricity and hydrogen. What an idea.
 
We are surrounded by kinetic energy, it’s just a matter of harnessing it.
 
And the best part? It provides the energy to make — whiskey!
 
Talk about good uses.
 
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2021/cop26-scotland-wave-energy-renewables]https://www.washingtonpos…wave-energy-renewables[/link]
 

In Scotland, they want to plug this ocean energy into shoreside electrolyzers, which separate water (good old H20) into oxygen and green hydrogen, and use the gas bubbles to power  [link=http://www.shfca.org.uk/news/2021/1/8/green-hydrogen-for-green-distilleries]whisky distilleries[/link].
 
But after two decades of trial-and-error, the sectors backers say marine energy is getting there. They say tidal machines could begin to work alongside the far more developed energy systems, based on solar and wind power, within the decade.
 
The basic concept? Imagine taking an offshore wind turbine, with its rotor blades spun by moving air, and turning the thing upside down, dunking it into the sea, and letting the tidal currents turn the blades.
 
Scotland is among a handful of such sites. [link=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php]Competitors[/link] are at work along the coasts of China, France, South Korea and Canada. In the United States, theyve done demonstration projects in Maine and Washington state, and one in the [link=https://tethys.pnnl.gov/project-sites/roosevelt-island-tidal-energy-rite-project-pilot]East River[/link] in New York City.
 
The experiments in Orkney offer a look at how the whole array might be interconnected a real-world beta test of an integrated, renewable energy future that would see electricity created by offshore wind and ocean power used to produce [link=https://orsted.co.uk/energy-solutions/renewable-hydrogen?gclid=CjwKCAjw_L6LBhBbEiwA4c46umtNfoTdOF1-rDtMSdPpxXELzr6eTlH7ggdobTKRb_QY7-CIWuNs8RoCNPAQAvD_BwE]green hydrogen[/link], which is hydrogen made with renewable energy.

 
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

Short term I think we need to see some action on gas prices.  I don’t necessarily think that’s drilling for more oil or allowing shoddy pipelines to be built either.  We’re in stagflation.

[btomba_77]

Gas prices are a political problem but not really an economic problem

About 5 years ago the US became such a large oil producer that the net positive GDP effect of high oil prices outweighs the net negative effect of high gas prices

That said, it is the most pocketbook of pocketbook economic issues that almost every American feels directly so politicians tend to want to bring gas prices down.

Personally, taking politics out of it, I would prefer to see persistent high gas prices for a few years as that will accelerate movement toward renewables

[kaldridgewv2211]

I think we should also tell manufacturers 89 is the new standard but I don’t think there’s s stomach for that.  It’ll get cheaper if they just go to 89 and they can build more efficient cars.
 
There in lies the problem.  Stock market is great.  Super market no so much.  Renewables and green are no where in site.  There is not much of an infrastructure to build new cars.  Where’s the R&D on new battery tech?  the cheapest electric car you can get right now is supposed to be the Mini at $30+k.  

[kayla.meyer_144]

See John Oliver this week:
 
[link=https://theweek.com/john-oliver/1006882/john-oliver-explains-the-us-power-grid-and-the-challenge-of-upgrading-it-for]https://theweek.com/john-…ge-of-upgrading-it-for[/link]
 
It’s what the infrastructure bill is partly about. Imagine if everyone suddenly has an electric car instead of gas that ran as well and as far as gasoline cars and trucks. We’d bring down the grid as it could not handle the power requirements.

[kaldridgewv2211]

I agree.  Electric is also surcharged based on demand.  

[kayla.meyer_144]

Contrary to end-of-world and back to living in caves predictions by the climate deniers:
 
[link=https://www.barrons.com/articles/moodys-ceo-the-climate-change-is-a-45-trillion-opportunity-51636581060]https://www.barrons.com/a…pportunity-51636581060[/link]
 

Moodys estimates that the economic benefit from the transition to a climate-resilient, zero-carbon economy could amount to a nearly 25% cumulative gain in gross domestic product over the next two decades alone, compared with a scenario in which the world fails to act. This is equivalent to adding the current Italian or Canadian economy to the global economy each year over this period. We see a potential $45 trillion opportunity for those prepared to seize the moment. There is already strong market demand for sustainable goods and services, with [link=https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-ESG-investing-a-boon-for-asset-managers-as-product–PBC_1265808]record inflows[/link]into environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, investment products rising 140% in 2020, and recent high-profile investments such as Hertzs purchase of thousands of electric vehicles from Tesla.
 
Crucial global sectors are moving quickly to prepare for a net zero future and have delivered substantial progress in recent years. To understand which sectors are best prepared for net zero and what that means for companies, Moodys analyzed the data regarding the decarbonization transformation of the worlds most carbon-intensive sectors. Three key takeaways stand out.
 
First, auto makers show that rapid progress is possible. Of all the sectors analyzed, the automotive sector displayed the most significant improvement in its preparation for a zero-carbon world. 
 
Second, how fast companies act is likely to affect their default risk. A delayed and disorderly carbon transition would pose the greatest risk. Looking at over 32,000 companies across 100 countries, its clear that the later companies and policy makers start to act on climate, the more likely it is that companies in the most exposed sectors will face elevated credit default risks
 
Finally, differences are emerging not just across sectors, but within them. Not surprisingly, some sectors as a whole are inherently better positioned to benefit significantly from rapid action. Sectors that have strong low-carbon alternatives and can adapt quickly under changing regulatory environments have the possibility for smoother transitionsand individual company choices matter relatively less.
 
Looking at the data, it is clear that carbon transition will be a key factor in corporate competitiveness. As the world seeks to keep on a path to 1.5 degrees C, the financial industry has a critical role to play in accurately pricing climate risk and supporting investments that enable companies to align with a zero-carbon future. 

 

[kaldridgewv2211]

there really is a lot to do.  It’s kind of exciting to think about.  People lived through the beginning of electricity transmission, and things like telegrams.  Seeing poles and wires getting strung up.  Street lights getting installed.  I think we can go through that again but it’s going to be all improvements in electric generating, burying power lines, building towers, expanding broadband, improving homes to handle new power requirements.
 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-22/bp-goes-on-hydrogen-hiring-spree-in-bid-for-10-market-share][b]BP Goes on Hydrogen Hiring Spree in Bid for 10% Market Share[/b]

[/link]
 
The U.K. oil and gas major is initially looking to fill some 100 hydrogen jobs to work on projects from Spain to Australia. Its among a raft of global energy companies stepping up investment in the clean-burning gas on a bet that the market will boom as industries and consumers switch to lower-carbon fuels.
 
The ambition is to get folk in as soon as possible, so they can start super-charging what is already a growing business, Matthew Williamson, BPs vice president for blue hydrogen, said in an interview. Therell also be future waves of recruitment.
 
BP has a slate of projects to produce blue hydrogen — whose manufacture emits carbon dioxide that must be captured and stored — and green hydrogen, which is made from water and renewable energy. The company already makes gray hydrogen, the dirtiest kind as its production releases CO2 into the air.
 

[clickpenguin_460]

Nuclear.
 
Nuclear.
 
Nuclear.

[btomba_77]

[b]France to Build 14 New Nuclear Reactors[/b][/h1]  
 
 
Emmanuel Macron has announced a renaissance for the French nuclear industry with a vast program to build as many as 14 new reactors, arguing that it would help end the countrys reliance on fossil fuels and make France carbon neutral by 2050, [link=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron]The Guardian[/link] reports.

 

[satyanar]

Dergon. I know you like to post links with little comment. Care to cast your opinion this time? I think its a great idea. 

[btomba_77]

Quote from Thread Killer

Dergon. I know you like to post links with little comment. Care to cast your opinion this time? I think its a great idea. 

My opinion isn’t much different than my post in this thread in 2014
 
“I personally favor an all-of-the-above energy policy that goes [i]safely[/i] ( in a highly regulated fashion to limit environmental degradation) while acknowledging that climate change is real and that we will with current technology not be able to safely burn all the fossil fuels we find and therefore incentivizes development of renewable energy sources through governmental  policy and international agreements.  I am also pro-nuclear and think that in 50 years or so we will be looking more to nuc power.”
 
________
 
Modern next-generation nuclear power is a good thing. Regulate the hell out of it… consider making it a true *public* utility under governmental control, not as part of the private sector where profit motive might lead to corner-cutting.
 
For France, given current and likely future geopolitics it makes a lot of sense.  As Germany went anti-nuc they became more dependent on Russian gas and are thus less wiling to act as a diplomatic counter to Putin.  If the French can help power the Germans and perhaps lead them back into an energy policy that includes nuclear alongside other renewables, that would be a good thing 

[kaldridgewv2211]

The pebble reactors sound like a big step forward in safety, size, and efficiency.  However, we’ve not build a new nuclear plant in the US in like 20 years.  MAybe we should be doing so.

[satyanar]

Quote from dergon

Quote from Thread Killer

Dergon. I know you like to post links with little comment. Care to cast your opinion this time? I think its a great idea. 

My opinion isn’t much different than my post in this thread in 2014

“I personally favor an all-of-the-above energy policy that goes [i]safely[/i] ( in a highly regulated fashion to limit environmental degradation) while acknowledging that climate change is real and that we will with current technology not be able to safely burn all the fossil fuels we find and therefore incentivizes development of renewable energy sources through governmental  policy and international agreements.  I am also pro-nuclear and think that in 50 years or so we will be looking more to nuc power.”

________

Modern next-generation nuclear power is a good thing. Regulate the hell out of it… consider making it a true *public* utility under governmental control, not as part of the private sector where profit motive might lead to corner-cutting.

For France, given current and likely future geopolitics it makes a lot of sense.  As Germany went anti-nuc they became more dependent on Russian gas and are thus less wiling to act as a diplomatic counter to Putin.  If the French can help power the Germans and perhaps lead them back into an energy policy that includes nuclear alongside other renewables, that would be a good thing 

 
Thanks. I wasn’t paying attention here back in 2014.
 
It reminds me of the bumper sticker in the 70’s. MORE NUKES, LESS KOOKS!
 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-ethanol-worse-climate-than-gasoline-study-finds-2022-02-14/]U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

[/link]

Corn-based ethanol, which for years has been mixed in huge quantities into gasoline sold at U.S. pumps, is likely a much bigger contributor to global warming than straight gasoline, according to a study published Monday.
 
The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, contradicts previous research commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showing ethanol and other biofuels to be relatively green.
 
The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy, found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion.

[/QUOTE]
 

[satyanar]

It should have been pretty obvious to anyone who understands how our modern farming practices and choice of crops harms the environment, that growing corn to provide fuel that is burned in combustion engines would not be a net positive.
 
Did it really take them this long to figure it out?

[btomba_77]

I am sure there is an army of farm-state/ ag lobbyists working every day to slow down the process of “finding out.”

[kaldridgewv2211]

Still think there’s some steps on fuel that would help.  Like mandating manufacturers start moving to 89 octane as the standard.

[kayla.meyer_144]

I noticed the article compared energy required to get the land, farm the corn & then fermenting the corn then distilling the ethanol to the finished product gasoline as if gasoline arrived as gas with no production required.
 
Did I miss that part?
 
I have no doubts ethanol is no miracle fuel that will solve our fossil fuel problems with climate change but conclusions seem based on very incomplete processes.
 
 

[satyanar]

Yes Frumi. One must look at all of the costs.

[satyanar]

Do you believe corn derived ethanol is a superior energy source?

[btomba_77]

**disclaimer** only a quick perusal of the paper.
 
 
It looks like their analysis was only on the corn ethanol side and they compared that to previously published total emissions for US gasoline under the clean air act.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

[b]Pipelines are the birth canals of the economy.[/b]
 
[link=https://theyesmen.org/project/peacepipeline/actionvids/prolife]https://theyesmen.org/pro…ine/actionvids/prolife[/link]
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Renewables. That is the solution. contrary to the years of right-wing carping that getting off of fossil fuels leads only to bankruptcy has been proven wrong again and again & yet that’s still the zombie message. 
 
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/20/texas-energy-winter-renewable-jacobson-dessler-rogan/]https://www.washingtonpos…acobson-dessler-rogan/[/link]

The fossil fuel industries continue to argue that renewables are a dangerous experiment, and that grid stability and reliability will continue to depend at least in part on fossil fuels. Here, Jacobson and his colleagues clearly show this is not the case at all.

Around this time last year, millions of Texans were shivering without power during one of the coldest spells to hit the central United States. For [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2021/photos-texas-winter-storm/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2]five days[/link], blackouts prevented people from heating their homes, cooking or even sleeping. More than 200 people died in what is considered the nations costliest winter storm on record, [link=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/2021]amounting to $24 billion in damages[/link].
 
Twelve months later, the states electrical grid, while improved,[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/01/19/texas-winter-storm-power/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4] [/link][link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/01/19/texas-winter-storm-power/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4]is still vulnerable[/link] to weather-induced power outages.

If we got another storm this year, like Uri in 2021, the grid would go down again, said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. This is still a huge risk for us.

Now, a [link=https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/21-USStates-PDFs/21-USStatesPaper.pdf]recent study[/link] shows that electricity blackouts can be avoided across the nation perhaps even during intense weather events by switching to 100 percent clean and renewable energy, such as solar, wind and water energy.
 
[b][/b]Technically and economically, we have 95 percent of the technologies we need to transition everything today, said Mark Jacobson, lead author of the paper and professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. Wind, water and solar already account for about one fifth of the nations electricity, although a full transition in many areas is slow.
 
The study showed a switch to renewables would also lower energy requirements, reduce consumer costs, create millions of new jobs and improve peoples health.
 
For years, some have expressed skepticism about the viability of large-scale adoption of renewables, owing it to their costs. But Dessler said that while solar was an expensive energy source 10 years ago, it is [link=https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea]one of the cheapest today[/link].   

A lot of peoples understanding of renewable energy is extremely out of date, said Dessler, who was not involved in the research.

[b]Wind energy can also be very effective and provides half of Texass energy some days a fact he surprised podcaster [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/02/11/joe-rogan-spotify-journalism-responsibility/?itid=lk_inline_manual_17]Joe Rogan[/link] with when he appeared as a guest on Thursdays episode of The Joe Rogan Experience.[/b]
 
[b]Solar and wind are the cheapest energy sources available, Dessler said. People dont seem to understand that, and they also dont understand that we know how to make a reliable grid thats mainly renewables.[/b]
  
The team also found interconnecting electrical grids from different geographic regions can make the power system more reliable and reduce costs. Larger regions are more likely to have the wind blowing, the sun shining or hydroelectric power running somewhere else, which may be able to help fill any supply gaps.
 
[b]The intermittency of renewable energy declines as you look at larger and larger areas, said Dessler. If its not windy in Texas, it could be windy in Iowa. In that case, they could be overproducing power and they could be shipping some of their extra power to us.[/b]

  [b]On those days that its cold, you have a lot of wind, which is really good news because when its cold, you have the heating demand, Jacobson said. You actually get more power output on cold days.[/b]
 
Its wrong to think of renewables as unreliable because you dont think about renewables by themselves, Dessler said. You think of them as part of a system. A stable grid that features a lot of renewables will also feature a firm dispatchable power that will pick up when the renewables go down.
 
The team has laid out [link=https://sites.google.com/stanford.edu/wws-roadmaps/home]plans for all 50 states[/link] on how to achieve 100 percent renewable energy. 

 
 
 

[alyaa.rifaie_129]

I have no problem seeking other sources such as wind, solar. However the article states a claim: “shows that electricity blackouts can be avoided across the nation perhaps even during intense weather events..” the article never indicates how this would be done.
 
The fact is that in many extreme weather events you could have all the solar and wind necessary but its the trees that disrupt the power delivery. The turbines could be spinning non stop but if the lines are down you dont have power. 

[kayla.meyer_144]

You have not read the article? The link I posted should bypass the paywall so the full article is open. 
 
Solutions such as:
 

The team also found interconnecting electrical grids from different geographic regions can make the power system more reliable and reduce costs. Larger regions are more likely to have the wind blowing, the sun shining or hydroelectric power running somewhere else, which may be able to help fill any supply gaps. 

 
As for power lines going down, that’s a different subject than renewables and have nothing to do with the viability or inferiority of renewables since we have power lines going down for decades now, long before renewables were a viable consideration. In other words, irrelevant.
 
And most importantly, trees had nothing to do with Texas’ problems last winter since the fossil fuel power generators froze up since they were not winterized.
 

 

[alyaa.rifaie_129]

Its not irrelevant.  He did not say extreme weather in Texas. He said extreme weather “across the nation” which is a total fallacy that renewable will correct. 
I’m all for solar. I think states should require new houses built if possible have solar. States should have tree set back laws from power lines. These extreme storms cost the companies and eventually the consumer big dollars which could be corrected w smart planning. 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Renewables are not about correcting extreme weather, anywhere.

[satyanar]

Quote from Frumious

Renewables are not about correcting extreme weather, anywhere.

 
Then why are extreme weather events used as examples of the dangers of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels rather than using renewables. Time to get a better message I guess. 
 
Please do not take this post as an indication that I do not believe climate change is exacerbated by CO2 emissions. I am all for the shift to renewables. This is merely a strange comment from Frumi that I wanted to dissect. He doesnt respond to me any more. Maybe Im blocked. Ill gladly take comments from others if they think they know what he means. 

[alyaa.rifaie_129]

[b][i]Renewables are not about correcting extreme weather, anywhere.[/i][/b]
I never said it could correct extreme weather. Your article has a false claim that power loss may be avoided in extreme weather because of renewables. 
 
Now, a [link=https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/21-USStates-PDFs/21-USStatesPaper.pdf]recent study[/link] shows that electricity [b]blackouts can be avoided across the nation perhaps even during intense weather events by switching to 100 percent clean and renewable energy,[/b] such as solar, wind and water energy.
 

[btomba_77]

Quote from Ixrayu

[b][i]Renewables are not about correcting extreme weather, anywhere.[/i][/b]
I never said it could correct extreme weather. Your article has a false claim that power loss may be avoided in extreme weather because of renewables. 

Now, a [link=https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/21-USStates-PDFs/21-USStatesPaper.pdf]recent study[/link] shows that electricity [b]blackouts can be avoided across the nation perhaps even during intense weather events by switching to 100 percent clean and renewable energy,[/b] such as solar, wind and water energy.

 
I [i]think[/i] this is an  example of bad science journalism.   Based on my reading of the article ( admittedly I have not read the study itself) it seems like the study looked at 2 separate things … related but different … a) switching to renewables and b) increasing grid interconnectivity while switching to renewables.
 
 
[i]”The team also found interconnecting electrical grids from different geographic regions can make the power system more reliable and reduce costs. Larger regions are more likely to have the wind blowing, the sun shining or hydroelectric power running somewhere else, which may be able to help fill any supply gaps.”[/i]
 
The two things seem to be muddied in the paragraph you cite.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from dergon

Quote from Ixrayu

[b][i]Renewables are not about correcting extreme weather, anywhere.[/i][/b]
I never said it could correct extreme weather. Your article has a false claim that power loss may be avoided in extreme weather because of renewables. 

Now, a [link=https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/21-USStates-PDFs/21-USStatesPaper.pdf]recent study[/link] shows that electricity [b]blackouts can be avoided across the nation perhaps even during intense weather events by switching to 100 percent clean and renewable energy,[/b] such as solar, wind and water energy.

I [i]think[/i] this is an  example of bad science journalism.   Based on my reading of the article ( admittedly I have not read the study itself) it seems like the study looked at 2 separate things … related but different … a) switching to renewables and b) increasing grid interconnectivity while switching to renewables.

[i]”The team also found interconnecting electrical grids from different geographic regions can make the power system more reliable and reduce costs. Larger regions are more likely to have the wind blowing, the sun shining or hydroelectric power running somewhere else, which may be able to help fill any supply gaps.”[/i]

The two things seem to be muddied in the paragraph you cite.

They are being muddled. The author does not state or imply that renewables themselves would prevent power failures by dint of renewables alone. Using Texas as the example perhaps causes some confusion as the pro-fossil fuel people of Texas and Faux News, etc  tried to blame the failure solely on renewables failure when the wind turbines froze – LIKE THE FOSSIL FUELED GENERATORS HAD – for the simple reason that Texas, in order to save a few pennies deliberately neglected to install systems to prevent freezing in most of their generators, wind turbines or oil/gas/coal generators including delivery of said fossil fuels.
 
My post’s first quote was this:
 

The fossil fuel industries continue to argue that renewables are a dangerous experiment, and that grid stability and reliability will continue to depend at least in part on fossil fuels. Here, Jacobson and his colleagues clearly show this is not the case at all.

 
 
There’s another reason Texas ran into trouble. Going it alone. The Texas grid does not connect to he national grid. The national grid has no problems with power failure due to the weather but Texas had a massive failure because of its unilateral isolation from the rest of the country. Had they been connected to the national grid, they would not have seen the massive failure even thought heir Texas equipment could not stand up to the weather. Meanwhile parts of the globe that has routine colder weather does not enjoy Texas’ failure. Why? you should ask.
 
The article has a few primary points.
 
First, as in the 1st quote, contrary to what the anti-renewable industry and advocates claim, renewables can surely replace fossil fuels for energy generation;
Second, the power grid is important & should be modernized & interconnected;
Third, using renewables, according to the article would lower energy needs and costs;
Forth, nothing about moving to renewables would cause national bankruptcy as the Chicken Little alarmists claim;
Fifth, by mixing renewables with solar, wind, geothermal, tides, etc, it does not matter that sometimes the wind stops blowing; or at night the sun does not shine. Because elsewhere the wind is still blowing and the sun is still shining. Thus the need for an interconnected and redundant grid. Then there are batteries whether chemical or other storage of potential energy.
 
The issue of trees blown down causing power failures was singly NOT the problem in Texas and not the problem of wide scale power failures. My neighborhood occasionally experiences power failures due to downed trees but it is not common nor commonly wide scale. 
 

Its wrong to think of renewables as unreliable because you dont think about renewables by themselves, Dessler said. You think of them as part of a system. A stable grid that features a lot of renewables will also feature a firm dispatchable power that will pick up when the renewables go down.
 
The teams simulations also suggested blackouts in California, like [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/california-governor-demands-probe-of-power-blackouts/2020/08/17/40867de6-e0b2-11ea-82d8-5e55d47e90ca_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_50]those in August 2020[/link], could also be avoided at a low cost. Installing more offshore wind turbines during the summer could provide energy, including to cool buildings. Transitioning to all clean, renewable energy could also decrease energy demand in California by 60 percent.
 
The team has laid out [link=https://sites.google.com/stanford.edu/wws-roadmaps/home]plans for all 50 states[/link] on how to achieve 100 percent renewable energy.

 
[link=https://sites.google.com/stanford.edu/wws-roadmaps/home]https://sites.google.com/….edu/wws-roadmaps/home[/link]
 
[link=https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722]https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722[/link]
 
[link=https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/21-USStates-PDFs/21-USStatesPaper.pdf]https://web.stanford.edu/…s/21-USStatesPaper.pdf[/link]
 

4. Conclusions
In this study, grid stability in the presence of 100% clean, renewable (zero air pollution and zero carbon) energy for all pur- poses is examined in six isolated states (Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, New York, and Texas), six grid regions in the U.S., and the CONUS. The study finds that all states and regions can maintain grid stability (avoid blackouts), despite variable and extreme weather, while providing 100% of their all-purpose energy with WWS. The advantage of avoiding both air pollution and carbon is the elimi- nation of about 53,200 U S. air-pollution-related deaths and mil- lions more illnesses per year (Table S21) in 2050.

Whereas interconnecting regions increases long-distance trans- mission costs, it reduces annual energy costs by reducing storage and excess generation nameplate capacity. The reductions in both also reduce shedding and land requirements. However, each state and region is large enough to provide its own reliable, low-cost electricity and heat for all energy purposes.
  
Transitioning from BAU to WWS results in capital cost mean payback times of 5.7 and 1.5 years due to annual private and social energy cost savings, respectively. Thus, WWS pays for itself quickly. Subsidies are not needed for the payback but are crucial for speeding the transition.
 
A transition also creates 4.7 million more long-term, full-time jobs than lost across the U.S. and requires only ~0.29% and 0.55% of U.S. land area for footprint and spacing, respectively, for new en- ergy technologies. The sum is less than the 1.3% occupied by the fossil fuel industry today.

I hope this time some have felt their remarks answered?
 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-new-oil-gas-drilling_n_62131757e4b0f93b261a9bb0]U.S. Freezes New Oil And Gas Projects Amid GOP Suit Over Social Cost Of Emissions

[/link]

The [link=https://www.huffpost.com/topic/biden-administration]Biden administration[/link] said Saturday it would suspend any decisions about new oil and gas drilling amid an ongoing legal battle with 10 Republican states over how to calculate the cost of fossil fuel-driven climate change.
 
The decision comes amid a recent court ruling over a government metric known as the social cost of carbon, which sets a dollar figure for the climate change-related damage associated with greenhouse gas emissions. That figure was $51 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted under President [link=https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/barack-obama]Barack Obama[/link], but slashed to just $7 per ton under President [link=https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/donald-trump]Donald Trump[/link]. Current President [link=https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/joe-biden]Joe Biden[/link] reinstated the $51 metric when he took office and said the administration would update it further as climate change continues

…

A coalition of 10 GOP attorneys general [link=https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/louisiana-v-biden-filing/89e4239f9bf807ff/full.pdf]sued the Biden administration[/link] after it reverted to the original figure, however, saying the metric unduly targets energy-producing states. A Trump-appointed judge [link=https://apnews.com/article/climate-joe-biden-business-trending-news-louisiana-8d06087eb01ebdcf8f60be06a99c05d0]agreed earlier this month[/link], blocking the White House from using the higher cost estimate while saying the $51 figure would artificially increase the cost estimates of lease sales.

[/QUOTE]
 

[satyanar]

Quote from Ixrayu

[b][i]Renewables are not about correcting extreme weather, anywhere.[/i][/b]
I never said it could correct extreme weather. Your article has a false claim that power loss may be avoided in extreme weather because of renewables. 

 
Thanks. Reading your response perhaps Frumi meant renewables are not about correcting [b]for the loss of power during[/b] extreme weather? Just missing a few words?
 
Then are they about mitigating the continued proliferation of extreme weather events going forward? That is one of the reasons scientists are pointing out the dangers of rising CO2 in our atmosphere?

[btomba_77]

[h1][b]Biden may Invoke Defense Production Act to Boost Batteries[/b][/h1]  
 
President Joe Biden is poised to invoke as soon as this week Cold War powers to encourage domestic production of critical minerals for electric-vehicle and other types of batteries, [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-30/biden-may-invoke-defense-production-act-for-electric-car-battery-metals]Bloomberg[/link] reports.

The White House is discussing adding battery materials to the list of items covered by the 1950 Defense Production Act, the same authority wielded by Harry Truman to make steel for the Korean War and Donald Trump to spur mask production to tackle the coronavirus pandemic, said the people, who requested anonymity as the details are not yet public.
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

Great idea.  Make stuff here.  Just a side on batteries but whatever happened with things like graphene batteries.   I feel like I read about this material forever and a day ago.  I thought I saw something recently like the DoD did a contract for graphene batteries.  This material was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread.

[satyanar]

Is anyone bothered by the continuing increase in power consumption in general? Shifting from carbon emissions to battery power sounds great. I’m not sure how “green” it is. How about these crypto mining plants popping up using terawatt hours of electricity?

[kaldridgewv2211]

Crypto seems like a house of cards and yeah it’s for sure not good the environment.  outside of that I’d say there is green energy tech available it just has to be put into the grid or captured into batteries.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uk-build-nuclear-reactors-amid-energy-strategy-83928424]https://abcnews.go.com/In…ergy-strategy-83928424[/link]

[h1][b]UK to build 8 nuclear reactors amid new energy strategy[/b][/h1]  
Britain plans to build eight new nuclear reactors and expand production of wind energy as it seeks to reduce dependence on oil and natural gas from Russia and other foreign suppliers following the invasion of Ukraine
 

[btomba_77]

[h2][link=https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/3488040-equilibrium-sustainability-solar-panels-to-be-sold-at-some-ikea-stores-this-fall/]Solar panels to be sold at some US IKEA stores this fall[/link][/h2]

The Swedish furniture manufacturer announced it will begin offering home solar solutions in some California markets through its Home Solar imprint by this fall.
 
IKEA is teaming up with California-based solar company SunPower to allow more people to take greater control of their energy needs, IKEA chief sustainability officer Javier Quiñones said in the [link=https://nxslink.thehill.com/click/27712797.18011/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucHJuZXdzd2lyZS5jb20vbmV3cy1yZWxlYXNlcy9pa2VhLXVzLWpvaW5zLWZvcmNlcy13aXRoLXN1bnBvd2VyLXRvLW9mZmVyLWhvbWUtc29sYXItc29sdXRpb25zLWluLXRoZS11bml0ZWQtc3RhdGVzLTMwMTU0NTkyMy5odG1sP2VtYWlsPWJiODdjNzk2MzMyNGIwOTQ1ODAzZmJiOGQ3OGIwN2JiNWI1MzNiOWUmZW1haWxhPTMxNTRkZTQ3NTYyMzFhOTcxY2M4OTZmZTEwYWM1NDYxJmVtYWlsYj1jNjgzODZhNmIzZTQyNjNlNzcyMzZmMDUwNDk2NTY2ZGQ2ZGRmNWQ0YmYwZDkxZTc4OTk1NmRhNjA0OTMzNDc1/6230d8bcb246d104952d89dbB198d35e5]statement[/link] Thursday.
 
If the pilot succeeds, IKEA plans to bring domesticsolar options to more U.S. stores in the future, Quiñones said. 
 
IKEA already sells solar panels in [link=https://nxslink.thehill.com/click/27712797.18011/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmFzdGNvbXBhbnkuY29tLzkwNjY2Nzc5L2EtYmlsbHktYm9va2Nhc2UtYW5kLXNvbWUtd2luZC1wb3dlci1pa2VhLWlzLW5vdy1zZWxsaW5nLXJlbmV3YWJsZS1lbmVyZ3k_ZW1haWw9YmI4N2M3OTYzMzI0YjA5NDU4MDNmYmI4ZDc4YjA3YmI1YjUzM2I5ZSZlbWFpbGE9MzE1NGRlNDc1NjIzMWE5NzFjYzg5NmZlMTBhYzU0NjEmZW1haWxiPWM2ODM4NmE2YjNlNDI2M2U3NzIzNmYwNTA0OTY1NjZkZDZkZGY1ZDRiZjBkOTFlNzg5OTU2ZGE2MDQ5MzM0NzU/6230d8bcb246d104952d89dbB62b95176]nearly a dozen[/link] other global markets. The announcement also comes about a year after the company began selling renewable energy to homeowners in Sweden.

[/QUOTE]
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from dergon

[h1][b]UK to build 8 nuclear reactors amid new energy strategy
[/b][size=”0″]

 [/size][/h1] Meanwhile
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/05/13/holtec-oyster-creek-nuclear-plant-cleanup/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/05/13/holtec-oyster-creek-nuclear-plant-cleanup/[/link]

All three incidents occurred on the watch of Holtec International, a nuclear equipment manufacturer based in Jupiter, Fla. Though the company until recently had little experience shutting down nuclear plants, Holtec has emerged as a leader in nuclear cleanup, a burgeoning field riding an expected wave of closures as licenses expire for the nations aging nuclear fleet.

Over the past three years, Holtec has purchased three plants in three states and expects to finalize a fourth this summer. The company is seeking to profitably dismantle them by replacing hundreds of veteran plant workers with smaller, less-costly crews of contractors and eliminating emergency planning measures, documents and interviews show. While no one has been seriously injured at Oyster Creek, the missteps are spurring calls for stronger government oversight of the entire cleanup industry.

But the nation continues to puzzle over the problem of nuclear waste. This material, which emanates invisible but harmful radiation for hundreds of years, is stored in protective containers on the grounds of nuclear plants, scattered in dozens of towns across the country.

 

[satyanar]

Nuclear

[btomba_77]

[h1]Nuclear Power Gets New Push in U.S.[/h1]  
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/business/energy-environment/nuclear-energy-politics.html]New York Times[/link]: Driven by the difficulty of meeting clean energy goals and by surging electricity demands, a growing number of political leaders are taking a fresh look at nuclear power both extending the life of existing reactors and building new ones.
Even past skeptics, largely Democrats, have come around to the idea notably in California, where the states sole remaining nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, is scheduled to close in 2025. The search for clean energy has given nuclear power a spark that has drawn bipartisan support that added billions in funding for existing and new projects

_____________________________________
and … I like this …. it’s in line with my opinions on nuclear
 
 
 

[link=https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-nuclear-policy-america-needs]Matt Yglesias[/link]: [b]The nuclear policy America needs. I’m not a nuclear bro, but…

[/b]I think the real problem here is both proponents and critics treating pro-nuclear as an identity rather than a policy agenda. Its more useful to think in terms of concrete policy ideas. For example, if a state is considering a regulatory mandate about what kinds of electricity its utilities buy, that could be a renewables mandate (which wouldnt include nuclear) or it could be a zero-carbon mandate (which would). On this, I am strongly pro-nuclear dont turn down carbon-free electricity. If the nuclear hype guys are wrong, nothing will come of it. If theyre right, well be glad the regulations accommodated that. Similarly, its just insanity to prematurely retire existing nuclear power plants. The problem with these light water reactors is they are insanely expensive to build. Having built them, we should use them.

…

Im very pro-solar. I have solar panels on my house, and I am in fact more pro-solar than conventional liberals. I want to stamp out the anti-solar NIMBYs who elevate [link=https://weeklypacket.com/news/2020/nov/13/neighbors-express-concern-over-proposed-solar-farm/#.YV7n30bMIcQ]saving random trees[/link] or [link=https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/old-meets-new-the-debate-over-photovoltaics-in-historic-districts-1_o]historic preservation[/link] over generating more solar power.
 
But I also think these debates tend to play out in a weird way as if we have a fixed pool of subsidies to dole out that different potential energy sources are in zero-sum competition for. Thats not really how it works. If you want to subsidize carbon-free electricity production, you can just do that in a mode-agnostic way. What nuclear really needs is specific regulatory changes that would give advanced reactor designs a chance to prove themselves. If it works out, the benefits could be very large simply because [link=https://www.slowboring.com/p/energy-abundance]energy is really good[/link], and if you want more and more energy its useful to have sources that dont take up as much space as the endless proliferation of utility-scale solar projects.
 
…
 
In the future, if we have so much solar and wind power that the practical impact of licensing new reactors is to compete with renewables, then it would make sense to raise the safety bar. But that is not currently the situation; there is plenty of room for multiple zero-carbon fuel sources to grow, especially because we also aspire to electrify our vehicle fleet. For now, a reactor that was 10 times riskier per terawatt-hour than existing light-water designs would still be much safer than a gas power plant and [i]dramatically[/i] safer than coal or oil. Again, to be clear, when I floated this talking point with some people who work in the industry they hated it they maintain their designs are safer than current light water and dont want any indication that anyone anywhere would consider any compromises on safety.
 
 
So thats great and I wont suggest it either (wink). But the fact remains that we really ought to integrate our regulatory strategies across domains with the risk of nuclear plants measured against the very real benefits of tapping new scalable forms of zero-carbon energy. Its worth saying that we already apply a different regulatory standard to military and research reactors than to commercial ones, and there are no apparent problems with the alternate regulatory regime. MIT has a nuclear reactor sitting in the middle of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and nobody minds. The United States has never had a nuclear accident on a submarine, even the ones that sank. All of the actual problems in this industry relate to costs, and the folks who claim they can bring those costs down with new approaches deserve a shot.
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Texas avoiding blackouts in this summer heat because of investment in solar.
 
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/21/heat-energy-crisis-would-be-worse-without-solar/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/21/heat-energy-crisis-would-be-worse-without-solar/[/link]

Solar power is saving [link=https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/renewable-energy-texas-grid-heat-wave/]Texan[/link] tushies right now. [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-18/germany-breaks-solar-record-as-heatwave-sears-western-europe#xj4y7vzkg]German[/link] ones, too. And perhaps, one day, tushies round the world.

The heat waves searing the United States and Europe have generated huge demand for energy, as air conditioners work overtime. Texas, for instance, has busted records for energy demand at least [link=https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/ERCOT-breaks-demand-record-for-11th-time-this-17317722.php]11[b] [/b]times[/link] this summer. Europe is simultaneously attempting to wean itself off Russian-produced natural gas, increasing demand for other fuel sources.

 
Solar power, meanwhile, has been heroically filling in the gaps.
 

Thats because there has been an enormous ramp-up in solar investment in recent years. This has been driven by multiple factors, including government incentives, customer demand and especially technological advancements that have made solar [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bidens-views-on-fossil-fuels-are-far-from-radical-despite-what-republicans-say/2020/10/26/ae06b8c8-17bb-11eb-befb-8864259bd2d8_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_6]astonishingly[/link][link=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0367136597/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0367136597&linkId=011bf7f3ec276a6e128d2d3ad60ae6fe] cheap[/link]. [b]Sun-drenched Texas not exactly known for its bleeding-heart liberals has nearly [i]triple[/i] the solar capacity [link=https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2022/05/16/SARA_Summer2022.pdf]this summer[/link] than it had [link=https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2021/03/25/SARA-PreliminarySummer2021.pdf]last summer[/link].[/b]

If you took the weather conditions from this year, and plopped them onto [the power infrastructure] from last year, its extremely likely that we would have had outages, says Doug Lewin, a Texas-based [link=https://www.stoicenergyconsulting.com/about]energy consultant[/link].
 
Coal- and gas-fired plants must pay for the fuels that power them, and those fuels have become [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/heat-wave-sends-natural-gas-prices-soaring-11658395801]extremely expensive[/link]. By contrast, the marginal costs of renewables are close to zero: Once the wind farm or solar array is installed, wind and sunshine are free.
 
Economic forces are already making the transition away from fossil fuels [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bidens-views-on-fossil-fuels-are-far-from-radical-despite-what-republicans-say/2020/10/26/ae06b8c8-17bb-11eb-befb-8864259bd2d8_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_25]inevitable[/link]. 
 
And voters havent exactly put two and two together yet: Theres a cosmic irony to the fact that as the world burns, many complain that fossil fuels should be [i]cheaper[/i].
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Hmmmm, youd think that with $5,900,000,000 ($5.9 TRILLION) subsidies, the fossil fuel industry could do better.
 
[link=https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds]https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds[/link]
 
[link=https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/does-wind-work-without-subsidies/]https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/does-wind-work-without-subsidies/[/link]

With those caveats in mind, well turn to one of the most common approaches of assessing cost competitiveness of various electricity sources: a measure called levelized cost of electricity, or LCOE. 
According to the Energy Information Administration, the idea behind [link=https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf]LCOE[/link] is to estimate all of the costs involved in building and operating a generating plant over its lifetime from upfront capital and financing costs to fuel and maintenance costs relative to the amount of electricity produced.
 
Its basically saying, if you wanted to build a new plant, what would you build? explained [link=https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/about/people/brian-murray]Brian Murray[/link], an energy policy economist at Duke University, in a phone interview. Since it represents a cost, lower values are better and indicate more competitiveness.
 
By this metric, several energy firms find that even without subsidies factored in meaning without the PTC building a new onshore wind farm is already cheaper than, or within range of, building a new fossil fuel-fired plant.
 
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, for instance, shared its latest unsubsidized midpoint levelized cost figures with us. Wind just edged out combined cycle gas turbine plants, coming in at $37 versus $38 per megawatt hour. And wind was well under coals $78 per megawatt hour.
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Reasons to doubt nuclear power.

[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/opinion/nuclear-power-still-doesnt-make-much-sense.html?unlocked_article_code=SsWmFlUq_FukJEZ-Y0WNeE0-D3Z4QhwMzxKhv7Id9ptxAdsiXMlH1mEVWKobD3n9tW_mGum8qxPrg1j_2-JKh2l51ksADAPhyfRnUiv33FppJFUPsITmsXdjHPNGEqZWNzyLjguyS95FpmeK5N5bPBJOkMOYE5M_HT8DM7XydAoraALqQxsGJp8bMZ1aWey-8e-8bNnjlES55YtmCikkq9ui_pq32o-cwg3DznGsI6MFDJVUIq3dEhSN43gJgi-KxyEDNJpWEaOdr26qlZbemzo1X4CMaBPH024kZoL8_mX89PwLSy77K00elyk0zTYos4jy0t3wLAvqjaUMKupF7zcJWjS9RckdSZN64SB6S_mnee8&smid=share-url]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/opinion/nuclear-power-still-doesnt-make-much-sense.html?unlocked_article_code=SsWmFlUq_FukJEZ-Y0WNeE0-D3Z4QhwMzxKhv7Id9ptxAdsiXMlH1mEVWKobD3n9tW_mGum8qxPrg1j_2-JKh2l51ksADAPhyfRnUiv33FppJFUPsITmsXdjHPNGEqZWNzyLjguyS95FpmeK5N5bPBJOkMOYE5M_HT8DM7XydAoraALqQxsGJp8bMZ1aWey-8e-8bNnjlES55YtmCikkq9ui_pq32o-cwg3DznGsI6MFDJVUIq3dEhSN43gJgi-KxyEDNJpWEaOdr26qlZbemzo1X4CMaBPH024kZoL8_mX89PwLSy77K00elyk0zTYos4jy0t3wLAvqjaUMKupF7zcJWjS9RckdSZN64SB6S_mnee8&smid=share-url[/link]