There should be people marching around with these on sandwich boards at COP28. They should be broadcast around the world. Atlantic council had the nerve to ask us to opine on how to get to zero carbon - when we told them nuclear was the only way, we got rejected - shocking !
Great to see these graphs, which help illustrate the futility of large-scale alternative energy solutions. My own small contribution is in developing a simple, efficient wind turbine as part of a planned plethora of small grid-independent, hybrid, wind-based electric power generating systems, under the name Seraph Power. I'm working on crowd-funding next steps in bringing this to market.
A SMR plant could be up within three years once approved; unfortunately the NRC and fossil fuel folks try to hinder that at all costs. The laws of physics and economics will win out in the end, it's just humans perversely like to suffer for a while beforehand.
We could in the 60s and 70s. Not all projects in that era were well done, but enough were to prove that the USA can (or could) build quickly and on time.
We used to build nuclear reactors in less than 4 years and for under $1B in 2005 adjusted dollars.
I agree. I was involved in one project that cost 2B for 3600 MWE , one 2000 MW for 11B and one 1000 MW for 4 B. But all plants once built ran safely and cost effective.
Thank you for advocating for energy sanity. I've been posting CAISO screen captures on Twitter. These screen captures show some of the reasons for CAISO's power being some of the most expensive in the lower 48 states. Reasons include paying neighboring states $billions / year to take California's excess solar power while they are building out their own solar. There is also mid-day negative real-time pricing in southern California for necessary dispatchable generation such as the huge natural gas fired fleet and the nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon. My twitter handle is @DrGeneNelson . I also put in a good word for you, Robert with the NARUC Meetings Director. Your "Bone Chilling" article should be on every NARUC Winter Policy Summit attendee's mind. I believe the big reason for energy insanity is a few well-connected people's economic interests are enhanced.
When you are on the CAISO website, take a look at the list of Cluster 15 interconnection applications. The numbers will shock you. I think most of them are subsidy projects. They’ll never be built but they’ll ride the money train for a couple of years. All Delaware LLCs they can disappear without damaging the actual owner
You said you didn’t know anything about California..I guess you weren’t kidding. Can you honestly say that any of this renewable stuff would have happened without government intervention?
Percentages of world population in the West compared to India/China/Africa show why the WHO, the WEF, the UN and various eugenicists institutions are well aware that quickly culling the high-energy-consumerists on this planet is essential to avoid a collapse ...
While many here are pro-nukes, I am steadfastly pro-gas. Don't take that,as anti-nuke, but there will always be a niche for flexible load following, easy start, easy stop, gas turbines on the power system. They will always be the workhorse to respond to AGC, provide transmission shift factor support and many other ancillary services. Despite the lefts rhetoric, high efficiency direct burn home appliances will remain as one of the lowest carbon option for most households
Natural Gas is a good choice for fueling power gen in the USA when/if the supply is available at the power generation facilities. Unfortunately, Winter Storms Uri and Elliott tragically exposed weaknesses in the supply chain at the fields and throughout the relevant pipeline systems. That's why distributed storage facilities are needed nearby or at the power gen plants. If Pressurized LNG is adopted as the means for liquefying NG for storage, the cost and energy required for liquefaction can be cut in half compared to conventional LNG. Big cost savings (CAPEX & OPEX) should be attractive to investors and consumers, while the reduction in carbon footprint should mean a lot to regulators.
Interesting thought Nick, I know PJM has been applying a lot of pressure on gas fired thermals to have an alternative fuel supply on site. That usually means fuel oil of some form. LNG on-site storage would be great since you don't need a duel fuel turbine. That being said it also showed 4he gas industry needs to clean up its act and take some responsibility. Pointing fingers won't get it done.
I love my gas furnace and gas range/oven and gas water heater. I doubt I would want to switch to electric even if 100% of our electricity was nuclear. Gas would still be cheaper.
If I can trust the numbers from the generator manufacturers, if I installed a natural gas generator for my house, the fuel cost actually be less than what I'm paying the utility for electricity -- about 30% less. I'm not sure how the generator cost would amortize over that though, having no idea how long one would last or what the repair/maintenance costs would be.
It's the maintenance that would get you. You're looking at an oil change every 100 to 200 hours, tune up 200- 500 hours, major engine work 5000- 10000 hours. It works better to run off batteries and have the generator auto-start at 20%, shut off at 80%. If you really want to ask questions, I will point you to a generator tech Facebook group.
Totally agree. I think gas is the best energy source there is. And why would anyone with any common sense replace their gas stove with an electric one?
We could have even gone the CNG route with vehicles, but powerful interests steered us in another direction. But South Korea's public buses run on CNG.
Actually CNG bus fuel is pretty popular in most american cities without overhead electric for busses. It's way more popular than our British friend believes
I am just a short pipeline trip from the Marcellus and Utica shale gas fields so I disagree with your dubious assessment of gas supply. The Permian Badin still shows promise of gas supply for fecades to come. However natural gas, like electricity is infrastructure intensive. So if the gas distribution system does not exist, then getting it is the issue as you point out.
Well you have your opinion sir, and you're not here. Meantime I have never once come across a methanol burning gas turbine, or a methonal pipeline. The only place I have seen it in any quantity is at the racetrack. Since it's a byproduct of oil or natural gas I really don't see what you gain by this odd fuel. It will never make it as a primary fuel.
Beautiful laying out of the real actual physical facts. And notice how climate hysterics never even mention "cutting back" the carbon dioxide produced by the military...all the militaries! The military does not report its "carbon footprint," even as it claims that "climate change" is the worst threat to the future.
Global warming now renamed to be climate change is the biggest HOAX there ever has been.
U.N. was / IS the sponsor and financier of sweet teenager Greta. They are on board with all the other Grifters, governments, NGOs, et al, to get the gullible stupids to give them money to do the impossible! CHANGE THE WEATHER!
“MEN, IT HAS BEEN WELL SAID, THINK IN HERDS; IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THEY GO MAD IN HERDS, WHILE THEY ONLY RECOVER THEIR SENSES SLOWLY, ONE BY ONE.” ― CHARLES MACKAY, Excerpt from book, “EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDS” -- 160 years ago in 1841
It was never about the emissions.
The mask came off when Greta Thunberg expressed solidarity with Hamas. It's not about emissions and it's not about climate.
Good read, as always. Probably the only realistic way to reduce fossil fuels is lots of nuclear.
It’s really ease for elites to hate something they don’t understand. But there are good reasons WHY fossil fuels dominate the world. Here’s why:
https://open.substack.com/pub/eagleforge1/p/can-we-just-stop-oil?r=2og74c&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
There should be people marching around with these on sandwich boards at COP28. They should be broadcast around the world. Atlantic council had the nerve to ask us to opine on how to get to zero carbon - when we told them nuclear was the only way, we got rejected - shocking !
Great to see these graphs, which help illustrate the futility of large-scale alternative energy solutions. My own small contribution is in developing a simple, efficient wind turbine as part of a planned plethora of small grid-independent, hybrid, wind-based electric power generating systems, under the name Seraph Power. I'm working on crowd-funding next steps in bringing this to market.
A SMR plant could be up within three years once approved; unfortunately the NRC and fossil fuel folks try to hinder that at all costs. The laws of physics and economics will win out in the end, it's just humans perversely like to suffer for a while beforehand.
Those were some excellent slides. If only human society was fact-based, things would be a lot better.
Your last slide on nuclear is dead on. The West can not build the same type of plants China and Russia build on budget and in a reasonable time frame.
We could in the 60s and 70s. Not all projects in that era were well done, but enough were to prove that the USA can (or could) build quickly and on time.
We used to build nuclear reactors in less than 4 years and for under $1B in 2005 adjusted dollars.
I agree. I was involved in one project that cost 2B for 3600 MWE , one 2000 MW for 11B and one 1000 MW for 4 B. But all plants once built ran safely and cost effective.
Thank you for advocating for energy sanity. I've been posting CAISO screen captures on Twitter. These screen captures show some of the reasons for CAISO's power being some of the most expensive in the lower 48 states. Reasons include paying neighboring states $billions / year to take California's excess solar power while they are building out their own solar. There is also mid-day negative real-time pricing in southern California for necessary dispatchable generation such as the huge natural gas fired fleet and the nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon. My twitter handle is @DrGeneNelson . I also put in a good word for you, Robert with the NARUC Meetings Director. Your "Bone Chilling" article should be on every NARUC Winter Policy Summit attendee's mind. I believe the big reason for energy insanity is a few well-connected people's economic interests are enhanced.
When you are on the CAISO website, take a look at the list of Cluster 15 interconnection applications. The numbers will shock you. I think most of them are subsidy projects. They’ll never be built but they’ll ride the money train for a couple of years. All Delaware LLCs they can disappear without damaging the actual owner
Well, all true for now, Gene, but only until they build 4,000,000,000,000 MWH of battery storage😂😂😂😂
And bankrupt California in the process. :-(
You said you didn’t know anything about California..I guess you weren’t kidding. Can you honestly say that any of this renewable stuff would have happened without government intervention?
If the attendance trend continues, 2.3 billion people will attend COP35.
Percentages of world population in the West compared to India/China/Africa show why the WHO, the WEF, the UN and various eugenicists institutions are well aware that quickly culling the high-energy-consumerists on this planet is essential to avoid a collapse ...
While many here are pro-nukes, I am steadfastly pro-gas. Don't take that,as anti-nuke, but there will always be a niche for flexible load following, easy start, easy stop, gas turbines on the power system. They will always be the workhorse to respond to AGC, provide transmission shift factor support and many other ancillary services. Despite the lefts rhetoric, high efficiency direct burn home appliances will remain as one of the lowest carbon option for most households
Natural Gas is a good choice for fueling power gen in the USA when/if the supply is available at the power generation facilities. Unfortunately, Winter Storms Uri and Elliott tragically exposed weaknesses in the supply chain at the fields and throughout the relevant pipeline systems. That's why distributed storage facilities are needed nearby or at the power gen plants. If Pressurized LNG is adopted as the means for liquefying NG for storage, the cost and energy required for liquefaction can be cut in half compared to conventional LNG. Big cost savings (CAPEX & OPEX) should be attractive to investors and consumers, while the reduction in carbon footprint should mean a lot to regulators.
Interesting thought Nick, I know PJM has been applying a lot of pressure on gas fired thermals to have an alternative fuel supply on site. That usually means fuel oil of some form. LNG on-site storage would be great since you don't need a duel fuel turbine. That being said it also showed 4he gas industry needs to clean up its act and take some responsibility. Pointing fingers won't get it done.
I love my gas furnace and gas range/oven and gas water heater. I doubt I would want to switch to electric even if 100% of our electricity was nuclear. Gas would still be cheaper.
If I can trust the numbers from the generator manufacturers, if I installed a natural gas generator for my house, the fuel cost actually be less than what I'm paying the utility for electricity -- about 30% less. I'm not sure how the generator cost would amortize over that though, having no idea how long one would last or what the repair/maintenance costs would be.
It's the maintenance that would get you. You're looking at an oil change every 100 to 200 hours, tune up 200- 500 hours, major engine work 5000- 10000 hours. It works better to run off batteries and have the generator auto-start at 20%, shut off at 80%. If you really want to ask questions, I will point you to a generator tech Facebook group.
Totally agree. I think gas is the best energy source there is. And why would anyone with any common sense replace their gas stove with an electric one?
We could have even gone the CNG route with vehicles, but powerful interests steered us in another direction. But South Korea's public buses run on CNG.
FYI here are the locations of CNG fueling stations in the USA https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=CNG
Actually CNG bus fuel is pretty popular in most american cities without overhead electric for busses. It's way more popular than our British friend believes
I am just a short pipeline trip from the Marcellus and Utica shale gas fields so I disagree with your dubious assessment of gas supply. The Permian Badin still shows promise of gas supply for fecades to come. However natural gas, like electricity is infrastructure intensive. So if the gas distribution system does not exist, then getting it is the issue as you point out.
Well you have your opinion sir, and you're not here. Meantime I have never once come across a methanol burning gas turbine, or a methonal pipeline. The only place I have seen it in any quantity is at the racetrack. Since it's a byproduct of oil or natural gas I really don't see what you gain by this odd fuel. It will never make it as a primary fuel.
Beautiful laying out of the real actual physical facts. And notice how climate hysterics never even mention "cutting back" the carbon dioxide produced by the military...all the militaries! The military does not report its "carbon footprint," even as it claims that "climate change" is the worst threat to the future.
What a ridiculous case of doublespeak.
Great read for sure. Thanks for the graphs.
Great article and charts Robert. Thanks!
Global warming now renamed to be climate change is the biggest HOAX there ever has been.
U.N. was / IS the sponsor and financier of sweet teenager Greta. They are on board with all the other Grifters, governments, NGOs, et al, to get the gullible stupids to give them money to do the impossible! CHANGE THE WEATHER!
“MEN, IT HAS BEEN WELL SAID, THINK IN HERDS; IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THEY GO MAD IN HERDS, WHILE THEY ONLY RECOVER THEIR SENSES SLOWLY, ONE BY ONE.” ― CHARLES MACKAY, Excerpt from book, “EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDS” -- 160 years ago in 1841