You forgot about the transmission part. I guess you plan to move in next to the solar farm way out in the "ugly" desert and plug in with your extension cord? I'll bet you're the type that would hate to see wind farms built on beaches, you know, where the wind is always blowing, and population centers really close by for more efficient transmission?? Wouldn't those be great??

good trump

jeremy said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Valar and Antares just reached criticality at INL for their SMRs. Radiant should be right behind them.

All three are building container sized SMRs producing around 1MW.

---

Well, they sure should be or the HMFIC will be pissed and probably send us all to the DMV or at least put us on KP where there will be BYOB. It's all going to be a PR nightmare and it better be fixed PDQ. Do you have an ETA on the DL or is that still TBD?


Seriously have no clue what you just wrote.

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

We still need nat gas for peak shaving. Nukes are great base load plants but suck at meeting variable demand. Gas on the other hand is great for that purpose. Gas isn't going away as a key part of the power grid anytime in our lifetime.

---

I could be wrong but I am under the impression that Nat Gas is being used for a lot more than "peak shaving"
I am also under the impression fracking is much more profitable now that some of that extra Nat Gas can be pushed towards power generation

RAB87 said:

---

Can we finally tear down the environmentally devastating windmills and solar farms now? They are a testament to leftist ******s screeching "we believe in science" as they kneel at the feet of clowns (aka climate scientists) like Al Gore, AOC, and Greta Thunberg.

---

Absolutely not!! Our local school boards and county commissioners gave these Foreigners 30 year tax abatements and we must wait that long to see the Promised increase in tax revenue. Lol.

Sq 17 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

We still need nat gas for peak shaving. Nukes are great base load plants but suck at meeting variable demand. Gas on the other hand is great for that purpose. Gas isn't going away as a key part of the power grid anytime in our lifetime.

---

I could be wrong but I am under the impression that Nat Gas is being used for a lot more than "peak shaving"
I am also under the impression fracking is much more profitable now that some of that extra Nat Gas can be pushed towards power generation

---

Currently, yes, Nat Gas is handling quite a bit more of the base load as they are 1) cheaper to build (by a fair bit) 2) cheaper to operate (nuclear complicates everything from supply chain to everyday personnel procedures), 3) pretty flexible in terms of output/startup/shutdown times. But (and I'm going off memory here), the total output of one gas turbine plant is quite a bit lower than one nuke plant with 2 reactors, so you have to build more. That last sentence might be wrong, though.

I definitely agree and understand why we have Nat Gas base load
Seems like Fracking create a small glut of Nat gas and Building power generation made sense given how cheap the Nat Gas was

If nuclear really got rolling all of the existing players would be less profitable and consumers would greatly benefit which is why I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

Trump IMO is more interested in talking S*** about renewables than actually changing how power is generated

Nuclear is the tits for baseload, gas for spin-up supply.

The generators have plenty of models and very smart math dudes who could tell anyone who would listen the optimal breakdown of types supply generation.

Those same folks would have also told you how abjectly ******ed wind and solar are.

Common sense would solve a lot of our problems.

Sq 17 said:

---

I definitely agree and understand why we have Nat Gas base load
Seems like Fracking create a small glut of Nat gas and Building power generation made sense given how cheap the Nat Gas was

If nuclear really got rolling all of the existing players would be less profitable and consumers would greatly benefit which is why I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

Trump IMO is more interested in talking S*** about renewables than actually changing how power is generated

---

He walks the walk. HTH.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Nuclear is the tits for baseload, gas for spin-up supply.

The generators have plenty of models and very smart math dudes who could tell anyone who would listen the optimal breakdown of types supply generation.

Those same folks would have also told you how abjectly ******ed wind and solar are.

Common sense would solve a lot of our problems.

---

Just to make sure it's clear, I'm about as pro-nuclear as you can get (probably because my job is in the supply chain).

Maybe the better term is "rate of ROI". Gas tends to be faster than nuke, though both will make money. I know this video's been posted here before, but it's worth posting again simply because it's so damn good.

I'm actually very glad that snowmeggedon happened when it did. We have been able to stabilize the base load. It also highlighted the problems with the road we were going down. Hopefully we see some more Nucs get up and going on the Texas grid soon.

Oh I am with you and agree on payback.

Nuclear would have a massive ROI if the impediments were removed, made sensible.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

I'm actually very glad that snowmeggedon happened when it did. We have been able to stabilize the base load. It also highlighted the problems with the road we were going down. Hopefully we see some more Nucs get up and going on the Texas grid soon.

---

No reason Texas should not be swimming in water, energy and money like the other 'Gulf Coast' countries.

These impediments are a feature not a bug
Remove the impediments and Coal and Wind become less profitable and a surplus of Nat Gas could happen. Exporting LNG is probably the correct answer or increasing refining capacity but for now turning it into electricity is the a major use and creates a market price that is good for the producers - not so much for the Utility Customers

They are a feature of leftist American haters. They are a bug to those who want to make America great again.

Trump is an exterminator of bugs. He is fixing it.

And natgas remains historically low. During my brief stint at a utility 20 ago, natgas was 4x more expensive, not adjusting for inflation.

The proper answer is nuclear for most of the baseload, nat gas for the variability.

Everything else is noise and nonsense.

Coal fine too particularly until nuclear becomes more widespread.

You are correct not only does he talk S*** about renewables he is currently writing large checks to make sure wind projects do not come on line and checks to the coal industry ( iirc ) under some war powers pretense

Not exactly the walk I would like the President to be walking. If this initiative would have started day one in January of 2017 we be almost a decade into the process by now but as I said earlier I don't really think Trump wants to create enough nuclear to impact Coal and Nat Gas

Sq 17 said:

---

You are correct not only does he talk S*** about renewables he is currently writing large checks to make sure wind projects do not come on line and checks to the coal industry ( iirc ) under some war powers pretense

Not exactly the walk I would like the President to be walking. If this initiative would have started day one in January of 2017 we be almost a decade into the process by now but as I said earlier I don't really think Trump wants to create enough nuclear to impact Coal and Nat Gas

---

It's exactly the wall I like in a POTUS. Killing dumb**** and supporting smart stuff.

First term Trump was focused on throttling green nonsense, keeping nuclear plants from closing, and slowing (and trying to stop) the war clean, beautiful coal.

The war on coal isn't going to be stopped in my opinion. Slowed, yes absolutely. But the mechanisms to rid of coal eventually are in place already. When the Dems gain power again, they will reverse what Trump has tried to correct back to a level of sanity. As the plant director for a large coal power plant, I see it daily on where this is all headed. Heck, do you know how hard it is to find parts for a 65 year old power plant? Supply Chain alone could cripple many plants.

Some coal plants shelf life will be extended due to the recent influx of cash, but the majority will still close within the next 10-15 years, if that long. Our plant is looking to convert to gas and many others a lot like it. But that at the state level is a long process, then design and conversion. If you started the process today, you are still 3-5 years till commissioning. I think that is a path that needs more attention...converting our coal plants to gas. I know for many of our plants in the fleet, it is cheaper or flat cost to convert them to gas than tear them down to greenfield. Seems pretty simple to me to convert and get another 20 years out of a facility, rather than building a bunch of wind turbines and solar panels. Trump has done some good, but it should have started in his first term, to be honest. I wish he would put more pressure on state regulators to figure out their resource plans to know where all this power demand is going to come from. Just my opinion as someone on the front line and manages it on the daily.

DonHenley said:

---

Nuclear is the way to go. Solar and wind are scams and are unreliable.

---

I support all forms of energy. We need lots of it and fast. Everything can and should be on the table. As these are different areas, we should be building all of them.