Texas energy situation and green new deal

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,974
Reaction score
4,174
Points
113
Anyone who believes we can't do better than burning fossil fuels doesn't believe in science and engineering.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,679
Reaction score
1,883
Points
113
Sounds stupid, do they pay to winterize MN plants?
Texas got exactly what they voted for...
After this bailout, all a direct result of Texas refusing to play by the rules of the game in this country (i.e., federal utility regulations), this aid deserves to be treated as a loan, only, and Texas should be forced to pay this aid back over time, with interest.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,892
Reaction score
2,394
Points
113
After this bailout, all a direct result of Texas refusing to play by the rules of the game in this country (i.e., federal utility regulations), this aid deserves to be treated as a loan, only, and Texas should be forced to pay this aid back over time, with interest.
Ohhhh, but don't mess with Texas... or any other right wing utopia.

They want the Feds out of their damn lives... until they need to be bailed out for their own stubborn short-sightedness. Then they want the money, right quick.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,892
Reaction score
2,394
Points
113
Anyone who believes we can't do better than burning fossil fuels doesn't believe in science and engineering.
It isn't about believing we can't do better.

I think it's more a knee-jerk reaction, conditioned reaction. Anytime anyone posits the idea of technological and/or scientific advances that might lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, some of these folks seemed to have almost been trained to... just go batshit. "NO NO NO NO!!!!!"

Methinks the fossil fuel industries are spending their P.R. money generously, and it is having an impact down-stream, with the Limbaugh-listeners, FOX viewers, etc.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
1,945
Points
113
Anyone who believes we can't do better than burning fossil fuels doesn't believe in science and engineering.
We can, and that answer has been nuclear for decades.

But it’s the democrats who have prevented it from happening.
 

GopherNE

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
65
Reaction score
33
Points
18
Solar actually prefers cold as voltage has an inverse relationship. The power electronics (inverters) better have a cold weather package for those temps though. Also probably makes li-ion pretty sad.

These days no one is developing any amount of utility scale solar without at least exploring a BESS option. Take a look at the MISO interconnect queue. Yes it has been a slow development but change is happening now. Also for real world generation plans, recommend you read the major utilities Integrated Resource Plans (IRP).
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
22,056
Reaction score
2,032
Points
113
It's always the governments fault if they're republicans right? Why did Jerry Jones' plants make millions while others didn't? Must have been the government right? It wasn't.

Billions have been spent over the last two decades in building wind energy across Texas, mainly subsidized by plans supported by democratic presidents. How much did those billions of taxpayer dollars spent help in this situation? Anywhere from 4-15% depending on the day, but it was on the lower end when energy was needed the most.

Maybe more federal subsidies should be spent on winterizing plants down south rather than building more renewable energy that will always only provide a tiny fraction of help when weather conditions are most severe.
Didn't Texas take itself off of the grid?
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,974
Reaction score
4,174
Points
113
We can, and that answer has been nuclear for decades.

But it’s the democrats who have prevented it from happening.
I used to believe nuclear was the long term answer, but events have changed my thinking. The probabilities and consequences of catastrophe are simply too high. We need to be pursuing something better as a long-term solution. In the meantime it'll do as a prominent piece, but I look forward to the day when we can decommission all those plants.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
4,804
Points
113
The blackouts occurred because we need fossil fuels to prevent them. Building more wind/solar won't change that.
So? That was never the argument.

The argument was that wind/solar caused the rolling blackout. Your slight of hand here, isn't going to work.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
1,945
Points
113
Didn't Texas take itself off of the grid?
ERCOT is responsible for 90% of Texas' demand and they did separate. That doesn't change the fact that utilities build new facilities using federal subsidies.

Texas also has 3 times more installed wind capacity than any other state.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
1,945
Points
113
I used to believe nuclear was the long term answer, but events have changed my thinking. The probabilities and consequences of catastrophe are simply too high. We need to be pursuing something better as a long-term solution. In the meantime it'll do as a prominent piece, but I look forward to the day when we can decommission all those plants.
So if it's not nuclear, and it can't be wind/solar, what's the solution to become carbon free in MN in the next 19 years?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,892
Reaction score
2,394
Points
113
Interesting column; maybe conservatives fear competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Why Texas Republicans Fear the Green New Deal
Small government is no match for a crisis born of the state’s twin addictions to market fixes and fossil fuels.

----
A fateful series of decisions were made in the late-’90s, when the now-defunct, scandal-plagued energy company Enron led a successful push to radically deregulate Texas’s electricity sector. As a result, decisions about the generation and distribution of power were stripped from regulators and, in effect, handed over to private energy companies. Unsurprisingly, these companies prioritized short-term profit over costly investments to maintain the grid and build in redundancies for extreme weather.

 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,974
Reaction score
4,174
Points
113
So if it's not nuclear, and it can't be wind/solar, what's the solution to become carbon free in MN in the next 19 years?
That's where science and engineering come in, as I posted. Either you believe in discovery and development or you don't. I do.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
1,945
Points
113
That's where science and engineering come in, as I posted. Either you believe in discovery and development or you don't. I do.
I do too, but 19 years is a very short amount of time to come up with a reliable replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,974
Reaction score
4,174
Points
113
I do too, but 19 years is a very short amount of time to come up with a reliable replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear.
Nuclear is "clean" but risky, making it suitable but only for as long as you really need it. Long-term goal needs to be to dump it. In the meantime, change your asset allocation toward clean to the extent feasible. Subsidies for clean energy are an order of magnitude cheaper than the cost of climate catastrophy...or even the health effects of pollution. Most importantly, TRY! You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take.

As is the case with many things, much of our addiction to fossil fuels is psychological and emotional.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
4,804
Points
113
20 years is quite a long time. Will everything be solved perfectly? No.

But a lot of progress on storage will be made by then.

Storage bypasses the "false dilemma" that power generation must be on-demand and ready to churn at all moments of every day of the year.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
1,105
Points
113
Seems like no one looked at the videos so i will attempt to summarize. Schellenberger is a democrat and climate activist who is concerned about climate change. Time magazine has named him Hero of the Environment. Obama adopted his Apollo Project (predecessor to green new deal) in 2007 and put 90 billion dollars into this plan. He is an adviser for the UN committee on climate. James Hansen (Columbia), James Hansen(MIT), Tom Wigley (Adelaide) among others are working with him. Check out their bios, they are at the top of their fields.

Germany is the leading renewables country in the world and france is the leading nuclear. From 2006-2018 german elec. prices climbed 51%. Electricity is 75% more expensive in germany as france. In 2016 france got 93% of its electricity from nuclear and germany 47% of its electricity from solar/wind. Had germany spent money on nuclear rather than renewables their electricity and transportation would be emissions free at this point.

Solar panels cover 400 times more area than a nuclear reactor to get the same output. Solar panels have become just 2% more efficient over the past decade. Need to mine to create solar panels. Solar panels produce about 300 times more waste than nuclear. Nuclear is the only energy source where waste is 100% contained. Rods are put into casks that are 3 ft thick cement and lined with titanium.

California has invested heavily in renewables and price of electricity has gone
up 6 times more tha rest of country from 2011-2019. There are a lot of external costs with renewables tjat he goes into. Nuclear is 2 orders of magnitude more energu dense than solar/wind and that has real benefits costwise. Electricity becomes cheaper when femand and supply are perfectly matched as in our grid system. Storing energy and pulling from storage increases costs.

He spends a large amount of time talking about how nuclear reactors are safe. I'm not going to take the time to go into all of that. Listen yourself if interested.

Wall Street doesnt like nuclear because not as much money for banks. Nuclear plants last longer. Regulatory apparatus is much lessened with nuclear so people in those areas dont like it as well. Bloomberg and Steyer are big investors in natural gas and renewables. Both of those guys and other wealthy like them are terrified of nuclear because it is a threat to natural gas and renewables. Fossil fuel interests support renewables because they feel there will always be a place for them in that world, while nuclear energy would shut them out much more. One nuclear plant provides enuf energy for 3 milliin people so this is a real threat to renewables and natural gas interests.

I left a lot out but hopefully hit some of the high points. Will add another link or two if anybody's interested.

 
Last edited:

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,122
Reaction score
1,644
Points
113
Golf didnt get any takers - the guy is a great listen. Its obvious why the cast of characters here wont touch it.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,122
Reaction score
1,644
Points
113
Wonder when Murray and WALLACE :ROFLMAO: will discuss the haz mat from the solar? And their plan to manage said waste?

After all. WALLACE :ROFLMAO: in an engineer......:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
4,804
Points
113
No matter what ideology you subscribe to, anyone can see that no owner of a residential single-family home should ever be paying more than $X per kWh in electricity, for some reasonable X.

Even Doc Brown doing time travel experiments at 1.21 Jigga-Watts.


How about .... I dunno ... a ceiling on the rate that can be charged??? Huh! Novel idea!
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
4,804
Points
113
ONE. POINT. TWENTY-ONE ..... JIGGA-WATTS!!!!!!!

It-can't-be-done!!


(sorry, had to)
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,158
Reaction score
2,996
Points
113
No matter what ideology you subscribe to, anyone can see that no owner of a residential single-family home should ever be paying more than $X per kWh in electricity, for some reasonable X.

Even Doc Brown doing time travel experiments at 1.21 Jigga-Watts.


How about .... I dunno ... a ceiling on the rate that can be charged??? Huh! Novel idea!
Why? the Feds will bare them out.
 
Top Bottom