491–500 of 585 posts
What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage. I'm reminded of threatening tariffs to successfully derail global carbon levy on ship emissions. Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.
[flagged]
The real takeaway is when a big project can be paused entirely due to one presidents very specific / frivolous whims - we won’t be able to do big projects in the current order. We need a shift in the constitutional order where the whims of one person isnt fused with the bureaucracy
Correct me if I'm wrong, though there are already protections there. It's just president, senate, congress, SCOTUS all agree on this.
IMHO - most effective constitutional change would be to get rid of first past the post election system, electoral colleges, gerrymandering, etc. I think USA's two party system made it to the place where it is right now, seemingly on the verge of turning into one-party system.
I looked into this a little because I was curious. I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines. This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones. Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additiona…
He sees them on Scotland's shores while flying to his resort - like a child he needs to have a personal vendetta on something he does not like, especially now when he has power to do it. God forbid he will need to see such monsters on God loving free country of US of A.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's nonsense. Many countries have been using drones before. (Starting with Nazi Germany during WW 2.)
We have learned counters for them over the years. Ukraine makes drones vastly cheaper than the current counters and so we can be bankrupted trying the current counters.
Using $1m a piece missiles
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With something as serious as a nuclear reactor, I am OK with over regulation.
Over regulation of nuclear energy in the US made it so expensive we didn't replace all fossil fuels with it.
Blaming regulations seems like trying to find a scapegoat rather than admitting reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also like to see a comparison to giving people/companies a discount if they have alternative methods of heating for 3 weeks and agree to be powered off. Places like hospitals and universities often have generators and do this. Sand "batteries" (aka electric resistive heaters in a few tons of sand heated to 1000°C) might be cost-effective if standardized. You keep it insulated and hot until the power goes out, th…
You’re ok if governments give up and simply tell consumers “you deal with it”? Places like hospitals have back up in case the mains goes out. It’s no longer a back up if used as the primary supply.
> You’re ok if governments give up and simply tell consumers “you deal with it”?
Paying people to be prepared and willing to go without electricity in times of extreme supply-demand balance is a part of the solution. It's a regular thing for data centers, hospitals, etc. It may be cheaper to pay people to install sand batteries than to install longer-distance interconnects, and if people voluntarily agree, why would you object?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I misunderstood your comment and got too hot-headed. Sorry about that. Yes, the 95% renewables is the number we should be shooting for not 100% as that causes battery backup price to explode. I have been pro-nuclear for a long time, to disappointing results naturally. So, with how well renewables are doing I've really just jumped on this train and seen nuclear as more of a distraction from the critical next 1…
I may have misinterpreted your original post as saying we should be going full renewables. I think we're basically in agreement about prices. We might just disagree about the percent of energy that should come from nuclear. I don't see nuclear as a distraction, I see it as a piece of the puzzle. We will always need a source of reliable, uninterrupted power. Whether that comes from natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, hy…
Which can be for example gas turbines running on carbon neutral fuels. Optimizing for lowest possible CAPEX and acceptable OPEX.
The nuclear power lock in are engineer brained imaginary perfect solutions rather than accepting good enough.
> I'm still optimistic that small modular reactors are going to see success in the coming decades.
We’ve been trying to build ”SMR” since the 50s. It has never worked out. The industry likes producing fancy PowerPoint reactors in hopes for handouts and stupid money investment.
When they get far enough and have to present real costs and timelines the projects are shunned and forgotten. Like NuScale and mPower. And the boosters online move to the next juicy SMR project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment is not misleading, you're just using outdated data from 2022. Sure, happy to quibble over units. The most recent mid-2025 data is from lazard here, it echos exactly what I'm saying. Website: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e... PDF of report: https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... Go to page 8 of that PDF and you will see these ranges for LCOE: * Solar $3…
When they calculate that Solar + battery would cost $50-131/MWh, how is that number reached? What is the number of charge cycles and over what time span? It seems obvious that the cost of producing, installing and operating a 1MWh system of solar and batteries will cost more than a one time payment of $50-131. Most of the time when I try to find any data there is the underlying assumption that the charge cycle is a d…
It is much cheaper in the rest of the world. Recent Chinese storage prices are down to ~$50/kWh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but you have to pay for a line you don't plan to use much, so its capital costs should be attributed to the generation method requiring it. Which is fine, but not including it is dishonest about the true costs.
I think if you designed and built it with the idea in mind that you're building your renewables in the sunny/windy centre/south of the US to be transported to a these places all year round it's a better idea than it being a backup. But I agree that the cost of over generation should be factored in to comparison pricing. But I also think we don't include enough of the costs in FF infra either.
Mostly relying on long-distance transmission has high costs in capex, opex (losses), reliability, and security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised residential PV even interacts with radar -- or is that the other signal intelligence part?
It probably has more to do with the fact that solar that far north is a non-starter. Any PV installed there will actually make AGW and carbon emissions worse, not better. Basically, the amount of carbon emitted due to manufacturing is greater than the carbon savings over the lifetime of the panel in those locations.
I suggest you stop spreading misinformation.