60 Minutes Wyoming Green Energy Segment

@VikingsGuy @BigHornRam kinda funny comparing these threads to the gas price thread. Bottom line energy is vital for national security as is dealing with climate change.

Biggest problem in my mind is the politicization of the whole deal, some parallels to wolves in that...

It blows my mind when folks pretend climate change doesn't exist, but likewise I can't understand why green energy zealots flat out acknowledge that they don't give a rip about habitat destruction nor the fact that doubling or tripling energy costs doesn't mean much to rich folks but can devastating to the middle class and below.

If I was dictator I'd take a pragmatic approach to the whole thing, NG isn't a 100year solution but I can't even remember the last time someone mentioned acid rain. Certainly we should make the best use of that resource use it replace coal and fuel oil. Methane is definitely a greenhouse gas, far worse than carbon, but a lot of the issue with NG are old technology like using puffers in lines and flaring. We need stronger regulations on both those fronts. Along the NG lines EQT had a great white paper a while back how the US could have easily hit our Paris numbers simply by allowing more NG conversions.

Other types of energy production is also vital and needs to be supported with tax dollars. I'd also tell the rich folks who talk about both sides of their mouth to suck it and push through a lot of the wind projects on the east coast that got cut due to NIMBY-ism... if folks in Iowa have to look at wind turbines than folks in the Hamptons the Cape certainly should as well.

Last and a reply to @Wildabeest point we need to look at energy reduction as well, something like 10% of energy is lost in the grid. Compound that with the $ to the economy lost when we have power outages. I can't speak to the whole issue but here in MI I've already had 7 days without power having lived here just under 6 months. DTE our power company had to call in a ton of contractors to help with restoring power and I chatted with a couple folks in front of our house as they were dealing with a down line. They had worked in a bunch of different states and said this area had some of the oldest crappiest infrastructure they had seen. DTE is for profit and makes it's money in part by keeping those margins tight and just letting stuff go to shit... seems to me either getting rid of their monopoly or making energy utilities public is the answer. New types of cable dramatically reduce energy loss, and there are a number of ways to reduce or eliminate storm induced power outages.

Anyway I'll get off the soap box...

TDLR why is everything a GD team sport always
 
I think if our government, both sides, really wanted to do built nuclear reacters I think we have contractors that could do in a reasonable time frame.
Historically there are two problems with nuclear cost structure - (1) each plant is a unique bespoke design; (2) each and every part receives a unique and bespoke regulatory review (so, any mid-construction changes - which is an unavoidable norm in any complex construction project - add huge cost/delays); and (3) anti-nuke NGOs are allowed unlimited judicial suits to delay/block.

(1) and (2) would be largely solved by the more modern approaches of modular/scalable reactors and (3) could be fixed with 1 page of legislative text if we want to get serious about climate.

So, at some point the mess will get so bad we will pivot. But undoubtably we will waste trillions on lesser alternatives before we finally get real.
 
Last edited:
@VikingsGuy @BigHornRam kinda funny comparing these threads to the gas price thread. Bottom line energy is vital for national security as is dealing with climate change.

Biggest problem in my mind is the politicization of the whole deal, some parallels to wolves in that...

It blows my mind when folks pretend climate change doesn't exist, but likewise I can't understand why green energy zealots flat out acknowledge that they don't give a rip about habitat destruction nor the fact that doubling or tripling energy costs doesn't mean much to rich folks but can devastating to the middle class and below.

If I was dictator I'd take a pragmatic approach to the whole thing, NG isn't a 100year solution but I can't even remember the last time someone mentioned acid rain. Certainly we should make the best use of that resource use it replace coal and fuel oil. Methane is definitely a greenhouse gas, far worse than carbon, but a lot of the issue with NG are old technology like using puffers in lines and flaring. We need stronger regulations on both those fronts. Along the NG lines EQT had a great white paper a while back how the US could have easily hit our Paris numbers simply by allowing more NG conversions.

Other types of energy production is also vital and needs to be supported with tax dollars. I'd also tell the rich folks who talk about both sides of their mouth to suck it and push through a lot of the wind projects on the east coast that got cut due to NIMBY-ism... if folks in Iowa have to look at wind turbines than folks in the Hamptons the Cape certainly should as well.
I hated coal long before climate became the political killing field. I am also a huge skeptic that wind and solar are the final solution, so not thrilled with their subsidies, but also not a fan of the selectively blind OG onlyfans who some how think their favorite industry is a virtuous free market.
 
I can't even remember the last time someone mentioned acid rain.
I was going bring it up. Back in the 80's every coal burning plant cried that putting on sulfur scrubbers would put them out of business. By some miracle they were able to do it and stay in business, probably because the approval of rate increases of like $.0005kwh. Dealing with the corporations, utilities or OG or even tech, is like listening to your child trying to get out of doing chores they don't want to do. Most of the time it is hard to take their concerns seriously. But the industry pricing structure is highly regulated and dealing with customers is like having to listen to a colicky baby. Nothing you do matters to them, they just cry.

I liken it to an HOA. Everyone wants the cheapest dues resulting in no money ever being saved for repairs or improvements. Then when stuff has to be done or buildings start falling down, members bitch about how it shouldn't be them that pays but the person that sold them the property. Given we have a we have $33T in debt, I am pretty sure this philosophy of getting out of paying for stuff is engrained in the fabric of America.
 
Remember the Pickens Plan, @AvidIndoorsman or were you still in diapers? Your nat gas proposal reminded me of this, so I revisted this plan from 2008.
Looking like reduced dependence on OPEC and wind/solar development were the only parts to come to fruition. The nat gas part made the most sense IMO.

 
Remember the Pickens Plan, @AvidIndoorsman or were you still in diapers? Your nat gas proposal reminded me of this, so I revisted this plan from 2008.
Looking like reduced dependence on OPEC and wind/solar development were the only parts to come to fruition. The nat gas part made the most sense IMO.

T Boone, lovin OG and Feral Horses lol

Some of his ideas kinda fell apart due to fracking (not necessarily in that plan so much as in general, peak oil etc), we do use a lot more NG though...
1703093910211.png
 
I've shared this before, and I wish the Nuclear Industry would update this study (they originally commissioned it when they were asking for Federal loans guarantees for Vogtle). Certainly the renewable mix would change significantly over the past 13 years, I'd love to know where it is now.

View attachment 306885

EDIT* They did update it in 2016.

View attachment 306888
What is the data that goes in this table? Do you know? Explain the various categories to us all please. What would the "subsidies" for the purpose of regulation, Tax policy, R&D disbursements, govt services, etc. in detail.
 
What is the data that goes in this table? Do you know? Explain the various categories to us all please. What would the "subsidies" for the purpose of regulation, Tax policy, R&D disbursements, govt services, etc. in detail.

Don't be afraid to click the link and read it yourself, or do you want a handout?
 
You mean the "tax advantages" given every capital intensive company in the country? More Dumbocrat propaganda. Repeat it enough and the dummies start to believe it without knowing the true tax laws.
I think you just made the point for him, “every capital intensive company” . . . And that would logically include renewables.

Between this post and the following one I think you need to worry less about “Dumocrat propaganda” and worry more about actually doing some independent research and learning on your own.
 
I think if our government, both sides, really wanted to do built nuclear reacters I think we have contractors that could do in a reasonable time frame.
Wasn't saying we couldn't do it with American workers, it's the government beaurocracy and all the lawsuits by every environmental group that prevents us from getting these projects done in a timely manner.
When a project like Vogtle which had federal financial backing, runs so far over on time and budget and bankrupted Westinghouse in the process, how many other companies are going to want to jump on the next big nuclear project in the US?
 
Wasn't saying we couldn't do it with American workers, it's the government beaurocracy and all the lawsuits by every environmental group that prevents us from getting these projects done in a timely manner.
When a project like Vogtle which had federal financial backing, runs so far over on time and budget and bankrupted Westinghouse in the process, how many other companies are going to want to jump on the next big nuclear project in the US?
Regulation is typically the scapegoat, but I was told that the specialized pieces and labor skills needed to build a modern nuclear reactor are the real impediments. That and time. As much as I would like to see more nuclear, I'm not sure I would want to live downwind of one that cuts corners on regulatory requirements. probably not alone in that, so add NIMBY to the list.
 
Wasn't saying we couldn't do it with American workers, it's the government beaurocracy and all the lawsuits by every environmental group that prevents us from getting these projects done in a timely manner.
When a project like Vogtle which had federal financial backing, runs so far over on time and budget and bankrupted Westinghouse in the process, how many other companies are going to want to jump on the next big nuclear project in the US?
I totally agree on the risks involved. Once requirements are set for a large project with an established budget... everything looks hunky dory. Then cost overruns occur; and, as you said, time and material add to the cost. Then the project is over budget and behind schedule. If it's a government backed project, you know who ends up paying the contractor. It's usually a win-win for the private contractor if the contract is written to cover cost overruns, but the project takes forever to complete.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,576
Messages
2,025,556
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top