- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:27 am to bapple
300 billion spent on CoGen gas plants and your electrical bill would be probably 2/3 of what they are now.
Nuke is great, but it's too overly regulated and would take the better part of 1 to 2 decades to come online even at a place that already has some infrastructure present to support the build.
Obviously, you need a blend of different types of power, but with the glutton of natural gas, the quick assembly and relatively maintenance free operation, and most of all low cost of production... combined cycle is our path forward until there's a massive innovation in power generation.
Eta- Cogen Gas
Nuke is great, but it's too overly regulated and would take the better part of 1 to 2 decades to come online even at a place that already has some infrastructure present to support the build.
Obviously, you need a blend of different types of power, but with the glutton of natural gas, the quick assembly and relatively maintenance free operation, and most of all low cost of production... combined cycle is our path forward until there's a massive innovation in power generation.
Eta- Cogen Gas
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 8:41 am
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:30 am to Carson123987
quote:
The future is nuclear
Cant be by itself... if they went full out starting today to get a nuclear plant online, you're talking 2040 before it putting energy on the grid, prob at a cost of 30-50 billion
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:34 am to DomincDecoco
quote:
Cant be by itself... if they went full out starting today to get a nuclear plant online, you're talking 2040 before it putting energy on the grid, prob at a cost of 30-50 billion
For sure, and that cost is probably on the low end. There needs to be a complete paradigm shift before it gets rolling, the general public doesn't understand it and fears it, while politicians get way too much money from fossil and green industries. Nuclear is dead in the water for now
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:35 am to Locoguan0
so based on your professional opinion, is wind power doing more than the article suggests? Please provide data 
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:40 am to The Mick
quote:
ethanol is almost a higher hoax bc the sheeple have bought into that hook, line and sinker.
explain this if u dont mind.
-First, we grow corn just for fuel consumption
-to grow the corn it requires pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer
-these substances and their components are made in industrial complexes that emit gases and pollute to some extent
-it requires a lot of heavy machinery that uses traditional fuels like diesel that also pollute
-all to make a fuel additive that is grossly inefficient compared to gasoline so we have to burn more of it to get the same power output.
so the net benefit is a wash at best.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:50 am to bapple
Sure, just completely disregard the absolute shite state of our electrical grid infrastructure that causes curtailments on a daily basis. The plants are producing far more than the grid can take, and until BESS technology can increase it's capacity/duration of storage, the WTGs will show a production drop against installed capacity.
Is the industry perfect? No. But you're being completely disingenuous by not pointing equal blame to our failing grid infrastructure that can't handle the power.
Is the industry perfect? No. But you're being completely disingenuous by not pointing equal blame to our failing grid infrastructure that can't handle the power.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:57 am to Huey Lewis
quote:in extremely specific locations i bet it will. but those are few and far between.
Does wind ever even produce more value than what it costs to implement
There are groups that want to put these turbines in the gulf. Imaging them spending billions to put them out there then one hurricane takes them all out.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:00 am to DomincDecoco
quote:
Cant be by itself... if they went full out starting today to get a nuclear plant online, you're talking 2040 before it putting energy on the grid, prob at a cost of 30-50 billion
Robert Bryce (the writer from the OP article) is a big proponent of what he calls natural gas to nuclear (N2N). That actually would reduce emissions and help build baseload on our grid.
quote:
Is the industry perfect? No. But you're being completely disingenuous by not pointing equal blame to our failing grid infrastructure that can't handle the power.
I’m absolutely aware our infrastructure is in an awful state. I’m helping merely point out that money is being invested in the wrong areas. If massive amounts of capital are going to wind projects instead of building out transmission or new baseload power generation, it is a massive waste.
Wind and solar having low energy density requires them to be built out in open spaces requiring many acres of land. A nat gas or nuclear power plant can be plopped right next to a city on a smaller piece of land. You have fewer losses by the transmission being a shorter distance and you have less voltage drop for the power over that distance.
Not sure if you were stating an opinion either way but our infrastructure definitely sucks. It’s suffered from lack of investment for decades.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:03 am to bapple
Wonder how much is being diverted to bitcoin mining. I know at least a couple hundred MW that is.
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 9:04 am
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:08 am to bapple
quote:Different buckets B, different buckets. The power companies have one god, the bottom line/shareholder value. One is federal dollars, one is companies not giving a shite and letting a sleeping dog lie while paying out shareholders. I've worked for both. I did major line rebuilds for the utility in CO and I've built wind farms. I know this world better than most.
I’m absolutely aware our infrastructure is in an awful state. I’m helping merely point out that money is being invested in the wrong areas. If massive amounts of capital are going to wind projects instead of building out transmission or new baseload power generation, it is a massive waste.
quote:What land are you referring to, the land out in the middle of nowhere that maybe has a farmer who can plow right up to the 5' beauty ring at the base of a turbine? Or is otherwise not being used at all, for anything? Of course they're not in cities. They minimize losses by having a collector substation and a short gen-tie to a step-up POI. It's not hard.
Wind and solar having low energy density requires them to be built out in open spaces requiring many acres of land
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:10 am to Cuz413
quote:The more you know.....
-First, we grow corn just for fuel consumption
-to grow the corn it requires pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer
-these substances and their components are made in industrial complexes that emit gases and pollute to some extent
-it requires a lot of heavy machinery that uses traditional fuels like diesel that also pollute
-all to make a fuel additive that is grossly inefficient compared to gasoline so we have to burn more of it to get the same power output.
so the net benefit is a wash at best.
thx
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:12 am to Carson123987
quote:
The future is nuclear
The future is all of the above. High concentration of generation type doesn’t help anything other than making us vulnerable to attack. We need more of everything and a balance of centralized and de-centralized generation.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:16 am to Carson123987
quote:
The future is nuclear
Nucular
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:28 am to bapple
quote:
If climate change means we will face more extreme weather in the years ahead — hotter, colder, and/or more severe temperatures for extended periods
The computer sims predict that virtually all of the warming will take place toward the poles with little or none toward the equator. That means less contrast and less energy in weather systems.
Warm eras have produced mild weather both in the historic record and the geological record. Less energy means less wind.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:14 pm to Cuz413
Corn Ethanol is the Monorail of biofuels. Absolutely idiotic to use, but hey corn subsidies don't grow on trees. Switchgrass would make way more sense, but our politicians don't get money from a weed like they do the National Corn Growers Association.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:22 pm to bapple
Lots of down time with gearbox problems and other mechanical and electrical issues is what an associate of mine who works in the industry told me.
But the nation will continue to push in the direction of wind and solar, there is a huge amount of taxpayer money involved and a lot of persuasive foreign interest.
When you track the subsidy money you see that one company, NextEra, has multiple spin off companies involved in wind and solar, in fact almost all have ties to NextEra. One very active company is Invenergy, a company whose CEO is Micheal Polsky, a guy who is from Ukraine.
Hmmm, wonder if there are any dots to connect…
But the nation will continue to push in the direction of wind and solar, there is a huge amount of taxpayer money involved and a lot of persuasive foreign interest.
When you track the subsidy money you see that one company, NextEra, has multiple spin off companies involved in wind and solar, in fact almost all have ties to NextEra. One very active company is Invenergy, a company whose CEO is Micheal Polsky, a guy who is from Ukraine.
Hmmm, wonder if there are any dots to connect…
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:40 pm to HighlyFavoredTiger
quote:
Lots of down time with gearbox problems and other mechanical and electrical issues
A ton of them are hitting re-power schedules is what a guy who works on a wind diligence team just told me. But i'd still be curious to know how many that have exhausted their PTC are diverting pre-interconnection power to bitcoin mining. I know NextEra does it quite a bit.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:00 pm to The Mick
quote:
The more you know.....
thx
No prob.
I also forgot once the corn is harvested, it still needs to be processed (ground) wetted, heated, and distilled to make alcohol (ethanol). SO there's more energy going in again after harvesting.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:36 pm to Cuz413
quote:
Cuz413
Great summary. A couple of additions.
Ethanol doesn’t come close to competing with petroleum based fuels on a $/Btu basis. It is heavily propped up by subsidies.
Because we are squeezing corn into our fuel tanks instead of it being in the food chain, the prices on everything from tortillas to ribeyes are driven up.
The subsidies now make it attractive for farmers to plant marginal tracts, that would have previously been retired under the CRP program. Since the quality of these tracts are marginal at best, more fertilizer has to be applied (unaccounted for in the carbon intensity voodoo they do) and adding to the hypoxia (dead zone) in the Gulf. And taking CRP land to production has a profound negative impact on a variety of wildlife, particularly waterfowl.
It. Is. All. A. Hoax.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News