Solar and wind will take an increasing portion of generation in future years. And there are other sources. Dominion Resources is doing a joint venture with Smithfield Foods (large pork producer) to generate power using what they call "renewable natural gas", essentially generating power turning methane into CO2, a less damaging greenhouse gas. But the timetable has to take into account the costs involved and that not everyone has the ability and resources to have a backup generator, and a fossil fuel one at that. And be condescending about it.
OT: Alternative Energy
- Thread starter fg7321
- Start date
Solar and wind will take an increasing portion of generation in future years. And there are other sources. Dominion Resources is doing a joint venture with Smithfield Foods (large pork producer) to generate power using what they call "renewable natural gas", essentially generating power turning methane into CO2, a less damaging greenhouse gas. But the timetable has to take into account the costs involved and that not everyone has the ability and resources to have a backup generator, and a fossil fuel one at that. And be condescending about it.
I agree with this.
However, will this reduce prices at the pump? Its not like Exxon gives a discount to Americans for oil is produced domestically. (I guess the thought is that dwindling supply leads to even further price increases, so this would offset that. I get that.) If I'm not mistaken, prices are set based on global market, and has nothing to do with where it came from. Ha ha, I want to be wrong.
And I certainly think domestic production should be increased if it could soften shocks to the economy from the new war...
Nuclear is probably the only viable answer to replace fossil fuel consumption, battery farms are not a viable answer, the waste generated (disposal thereof) here is only slightly better than nuclear. Also remember where the necessary rare earth elements come from and the mining necessary to produce these components.
Right now there is inadequate infrastructure in place for wholesale conversion to EV vehicles, just pushing the issue back upstream. Best case EV are an interim technology.
In 2019 we domestically produced a million barrels of oil a day more than we are producing now. So now we have not done much to actual consumption we just use virtually use the same amount but get it from other providers and pay more for it, this is just stupid and is not a viable plan. There really needs to be a comprehensive plan that looks at this issue from a long-term perspective, and perhaps considers EV solutions from a geographical perspective that pays the maximum available benefits.
Ultimately the biggest issue in terms of pollution/ fossil fuel consumption is from India and China. Good fixing that one
Right now there is inadequate infrastructure in place for wholesale conversion to EV vehicles, just pushing the issue back upstream. Best case EV are an interim technology.
In 2019 we domestically produced a million barrels of oil a day more than we are producing now. So now we have not done much to actual consumption we just use virtually use the same amount but get it from other providers and pay more for it, this is just stupid and is not a viable plan. There really needs to be a comprehensive plan that looks at this issue from a long-term perspective, and perhaps considers EV solutions from a geographical perspective that pays the maximum available benefits.
Ultimately the biggest issue in terms of pollution/ fossil fuel consumption is from India and China. Good fixing that one
Well...if true...then that should solve the waste problem.
BTW, where exactly are these new reactors?
The only "new" nuc in the US in the last 60 years I believe is in the state of Georgia, I don't believe it is on - line yet and it has been massively expensive with enormous cost overruns
Look also to South Carolina. The overruns were so ginormous that the state cancelled the project and Westinghouse went bankrupt. I seriously doubt we'll ever see large-scale nuclear energy projects in this country ever again.
South Carolina literally flushed $9 billion down the drain.
The price tag on the Georgia plants is now $30 billion (!!!!!!!) with more delays. The plants are not due to start operations until 2023.
Here's a good article on why nukes are so expensive in this country:
thebulletin.org
Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done about it
The global sustainability of nuclear power thus relies on efforts to increase its economic viability. But how? Standardized designs and downsized reactors can help. Governments can offer additional support. But that still might not be enough to keep the nuclear power industry alive in the United...
thebulletin.org
Why are nuclear plants so expensive? Safety’s only part of the story
A look at the history of nuclear power in the US, and why plant costs have soared.
Nuclear power: CO2 fix or cost disaster?
Surging gas prices are resurfacing a debate about how much nuclear will play a role in the U.S. electricity mix in coming decades.
www.eenews.net
And BOTH of you are ignoring the early shut downs of currently operating plants and the aid with transition over the next 10 years they would provide.
we'll we all might as well drug up, drink and kill without caring, if we have given up trying to make the planet livable.
Warnings con come in mild forms or extreme ones, but the trick is to look into them and take steps necessary to fix what's needed to be fixed.
Unless it's the next generation can do it type of thinking
I don't care about shutting down plants early. If the lights in southern New York are going out because Indian Point was shut down, that would be a story. Otherwise ...
France produces very little Nuclear waste because they are allowed to recycle it, and we are not. They are making some progress in the lab with destroying unrecyclable waste via lasers, but it's not proven as of yet. In the end the progress made with Fusion will be the key. Allowing Russian propaganda to infiltrate Germany's Green party is the real problem for Europe. We mostly all want a clean environment, but severely handicapping our economies while the Chinese and Russians don't isn't the answer also.IMO
The Carter Administration passed an executive order banning Nuclear waste from being recycled. France produces very little nuclear waste because they are allowed to recycle. FWIW
This is a great idea
www.smithsonianmag.com
California Is About to Test Its First Solar Canals
The innovative project is a win for water, energy, air and climate
Germany is shutting down all its nuclear to buy fossil from Russia... I'm sure that will end well.
If I was a younger man 10 years would make more sense. I would also need like 24 panels which would completely cover my roof inclusive o FF half the garage.
Certainly not opposed to solar on homes. Not at all.
When we have our first stretch of 90+ degree days with high humidity we'll find out.
For the short term
Germany put a plan in motion , in 2011, to end it's use of nuclear energy in 10 years.
It planed to rely mainly (80%) on renewable energy,in 2030 which makes up around 40% used now,.
Germany also wants to end the use of coal as an energy source in 2030.;
Progress on the change to renewables were made harder by the opposition to spend the money
needed for new energy infrastructure projects..Current events might force keeping Nuclear energy a little longer , lessing relkience on fossil fuel and approving the energy infrastructure projects that are needed to end reliance on coal, fossil fuel and nuclear energy to power the country
and a huge number of people have moved from the rust belt and northeast to sunbelt states.... need for AC is important now more than ever. It is not like they are building buildings that can be cooled other than through use of energy.
true enough... but I suppose solar can help more in the south... but they will need to start developing huge battery bank infrastructure for nighttime and cloudy days.. or burn fossils. And the whole NIMB syndrome will affect it all. Of course, the politicians could just ignore the will of the people.. they have gotten used to that recently. if only they spend infrastructure dollars on infrastructure...
Florida and other states are creating laws and regulations to limit Solar Power
Because Florida is absolutely aggressive in its stupidity and backwardness.
If we could just saw off Florida and Texas, smash them together and let them float out to sea, America would truly be great again.
I can explain a case I know of.. Duke Energy is the regular provider. If too many people were off-grid with solar, they the cost of providing power to everyone becomes harder to justify.. less people share the expense of maintaining the infrastructure in a hurricane zone.
At least that is what I see as the justification for the following:
Get this.. you put a big solar system on your roof.. enough to generate enough to handle your needs and more to sell back to Duke Energy... they buy it at pennies on the dollar.. it is in the contract. They buy it at 6 cents (I forget the real number) and your cost to buy energy is more than double that.
And your solar is not used for your home. That is, you generate power FOR Duke Energy.. at that low rate.. and your usage is counted at the higher rate.
Yeah.. you can still more than break even with enough outlay. But there are rules against you putting in a battery system and running your home off that.. you have to buy through Duke Energy (I am sure other providers have similar deals elsewhere).
I think of New Jersey's fear of electric cars where they used the gas tax to pay for a lot of stuff.. allegedly the highways.. but really any governmental use they elt like in Trenton.. Monorails, etc. Less people buying gasoline meant less tax revenues at the pumps. Reduced ability to maintain roads (if those funds were really used for that).
So in Florida terms, more solar is good... until it threatens the established infrastructure with lower revenues.
You guys should also realize that too much energy is a problem too. I remember hearing about what seemed to be a strange effort in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. They used a lot of hydro and the problem was one of balance.. high usage during the day, less at night, they had problems keeping a balance so the amount they produced better-matched usage... so they gave away free energy at night and encourage office buildings to install outside lights that would be on all night.. leave light son in buildings, etc. Many stores had open doorways to the street with a wall of AC creating a thermal barrier to the oppressive heat and humidity outside. I found that odd and also fun.
Last edited:
And they'll all want power if their roof panels get damaged by the hurricane, and while the sun doesn't shine during the hurricane.
I need a new roof in the next couple of years and saw GAF came out with solar powered shingles that are nailed in like traditional shingles. Will save lots of money on install costs. Curious to see how it plays out.
And they should... they are hooked to the grid... but I don't think the solar panel people should be contributing much more than they use to decrease expenses of the no-solar people. And they should have more freedom for how they use the power they produce... i.e. the battery banks and connect directly to supply their homes power rather than sell the power they produce cheap to the energy company and then buy it back at a higher price.
Fair is fair. Maybe there should be a base monthly/yearly charge for being connected to the grid and not have production be a factor. The less you use and the more you produce the worse the deal for you.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Rutgers strikes in North Carolina again, landing 2025 LB Isaiah Deloatch- Latest: William J. Leggett
