Politics

[WAB]

Really?

By Capacity and Generation, the United States is #1, with France #2, China #3 and Canada #7th (SoKorea is #6). Of course this includes Military reactors. Canada has 19 total and the US has 94 total, with 54 non-military. France has 57 total. China is currently building 28 (so much for all the solar and wind that they are so happy to export). Canada, US and France are currently building zero.

AJ

I specified non-military applications, and my comments were directed specifically at safety records, which I should have clarified.

 

[roverandbrew]

I just noticed that FIFA wants Trump to pause ICE during World Cup. Are you kidding me! If anything ICE needs to ramp up during World Cup.

Or keep ICE away overtly catching Mexicans and shift them to low visibility arrests of foreign operatives using the Cup as cover for their visit to the US. Make a real difference.

 

[WAB]

Oh ya right WAB, only Canada can come up with “good” nuclear power. Just like they (Northern Dynasty Minerals LTD of Canada) can come up with a massive but “good” open pit gold mine in Alaska USA that, if built, will certainly threaten the world’s largest sockeye salmon run of the Kvichak River and all the associated fisheries and connected drainages of Bristol Bay.

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. My comments are specific to the safety record of US non-military nuclear facilities. Canada and France have the best record. The US is frankly poor. I’m sorry if that offends you.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

 

[deewayne2003]

Well it appears Irish farmers have had enough of their government.

The government has responded by dropping fuel tax by 10 cents and it seems to only have a negative effect.

Convoys of buses with people coming and the Garda(police) are stationed at bridges and not letting people travel to Dublin.

 

[Brent in Az]

Well it appears Irish farmers have had enough of their government.

The government has responded by dropping fuel tax by 10 cents and it seems to only have a negative effect.

Convoys of buses with people coming and the Garda(police) are stationed at bridges and not letting people travel to Dublin.

Where's William Wallace when you need him?

 

[Safari Dave]

I try to avoid politics on this forum, when I can, because mine don't necessary fit into any mainstream category.


However, I've been around since the Iran hostage crisis that started in 1979.

I've never understood why any US administration would let Iran proceed with making nuclear weapons, when they, very overtly, plan to use them.

 

[HuntingGold]

Thank you sir, for saying the quiet part out loud. Unbelievably, many want to wish this problem away.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

Where's William Wallace when you need him?

I believe he was Scottish.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

I seem to have missed the death of democracy in Canada. I understand that if you can’t elect your party’s candidate in a free election you can buy the candidate after the fact. Like I said before the USAs greatest threat is their socialist CCP loving Libiturd neighbours to the north.

 

[Brent in Az]

I believe he was Scottish.

I know that

 

[Big_Easy]

Sir have you seen the wind fields? in Texas around amarillo, midwestern states like Wisconsin/Illinois or east Colorado/west Kansas? There pretty unsightly. Always loaded with dead birds under them. And the solar fields down here in the south ruin good grazing and agricultural ground. The ones put in the north make me really wonder the real purpose since it’s the best ag land in America and snows 1/3 the year so not the best use for solar.

While you may be right on cost of new wind systems being cheap per mwh it’s unrealistic to think that America can run on wind and solar as a standalone or even majority. Even Elon musk says that’s not possible…I’m not saying you are saying that only that the argument for wind and solar used constantly is for its total replacement of fossil fuels.

I suppose how they look is in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't take an opinion on their sightliness, just on their cost and health/env considerations. It's true we dont really need to put solar on agg lands, theres enough existing structures to put them on top of. But no one is forcing their placement on these lands. Thats up to the landowner to decide for themselves. Renewables are one piece of the puzzle, but as battery storage costs drop, they will become a larger component. Maybe SMRs will eventually prove to be cost effective as well.

 

[Big_Easy]

OK, I just spent the last hour+ reviewing your research. First of all, the estimate for gas prices are above the actual $MMBTU. Also, (I read it quickly) the total cost of the combined gas/coal was inclusive of the decommissioning and reclaimation costs. I could not find where the reclaimation costs were included in the wind assumptions. Some of the comparisons were not apples-apples, with the cost of storage (only needed for the 'renewables' type energy). I found no cost of reclaimation for the batteries/storage either.

If wind is such a great deal, start a company and create all this cheap energy WITHOUT BEING SUBSIDIZED by TAX PAYERS. !!!

AJ

Well first of all, thanks for reading my source, I'm getting the sense that no one else is. The source is one of several that estimate the LCOE, others have varying costs for new gas plants, some cost more, some less. The reclamation costs associated with wind would be rather small, mostly to cut up and transport the blades to a landfill. The tipping fees for C&D landfills are rather inexpensive. As for the batteries, they are the one thing thats almost entirely recyclable. A good example are the current lead acid batteries in everyday autos. They have an incredible recycle rate 98-99%. Lithium ion batteries can easily achieve similar rates.

As for subsidies, yes, it is subsidized. But so are many, many goods and services in this country. Corn ethanol was heavily subsidized until 2011, and still partially is (in the sense of gov req's and preferential market treatment). Coal was heavily subsidized until Obama. I know everyone says "war on Coal," but in reality it was just transferring the subsidy to another energy source. As soon as Coal plants are required to add not just Particular Matter (PM) control, but SOx and NOx controls as well, and properly clean up their bottom ash/slag components...they become uneconomical. That and most Appalachian coal is underground, thats why the powder river basin has reigned supreme in coal for almost 40 years. Open Pit mines are way cheaper, and many have lower sulfur content too.

 

[Big_Easy]

Solar - If solar is so great and "clean energy" then why does the soil under those solar panels need remediation to deal with leached heavy metals, microbial sterilization, nutrient leaching, PH distortion?

Further remediation is needed if the solar panels were broken.... such as hail, tornados, wind or flood.

On shore wind - 90% of the blades are made in China, carried over on diesel boats, hauled hundreds of miles on diesel burning trucks and all so they can have a 10 year life span at the end of which they are buried in landfills.
View attachment 759222

That's a D-10 Dozer burying those worn out turbine blades; to put that in scale, here is a pic of 17 grown men standing beside a D-10 CAT.

View attachment 759223

Then there is the exemption permit the wind energy sector has, they are exempt from repercussions based on killing large birds of prey - If the oil industry killed as many raptors as the wind industry there would literally be people in federal prison over it.

I'm sure I'll get shit for this, but you can dispose of wind turbine blades by incinerating them too. They are primarily fiberglass, resin, polyester, and CF. And no, I dont mean opening burning. They can be used as a feedstock for cement kilns instead of fossil fuels too. Although the ash would need to be put in a MSW landfill or Coal ash landfill versus a C&D, so that would be more expensive, but much lower quantities.

 

[Big_Easy]

The US has a terrible track record in nuclear power in non-military applications. Our aversion to regulatory oversight and nuclear power generation are not a good fit. The current push to install nuclear generation in data centers is frankly terrifying. Two nations have managed nuclear power well, Canada and France.

More recently yes, I would add Finland, and China to your list. France, like the US used to be good at Nuclear power, but they are doing a pretty bad job the last few years.

 

[Big_Easy]

Really?

By Capacity and Generation, the United States is #1, with France #2, China #3 and Canada #7th (SoKorea is #6). Of course this includes Military reactors. Canada has 19 total and the US has 94 total, with 54 non-military. France has 57 total. China is currently building 28 (so much for all the solar and wind that they are so happy to export). Canada, US and France are currently building zero.

AJ

Yeah, the US is still number one, but most of our reactors were built between 1967 and 1987. Very few have been built since. In fact, more have been shutdown than built in the last 40ish years. On the plus side, 3-4 are looking to possibly be restarted in the next few years. And the two abandoned ones in SC may be finished as well...sadly all for data centers, but still a win I suppose. And the UK is building 2, with 2 more planned soon.

 

[Tex .416]

I see. The US enforced the blockade against Venezuela by taking oil tankers on the high seas, sometimes chasing them down halfway across the world. I didn't hear anyone screaming that was piracy. But was it a legal blockade? From what I'm reading in the news the Trump administration plans to employ the same strategy waiting for ships to get out on the high seas before stopping them. This blockade will not be at the entrance to Iranian ports or even in the Strait of Hormuz. Did I not read that US warships have been withdrawn to Indian Ocean?

Out of curiosity, what/where do you read for news and information?

 

[Pondoro]

This is saxed from the Daily Mail..

Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, made the announcement on X amid reports that a Chinese tanker and another vessel were forced to make U-turns after passing through the Strait, through which one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes.

Oil tanker Rich Starry is owned by Shanghai Xuanrun Shipping Co Ltd. and became a target for US sanctions because it was used to transport Iranian crude.

After circling the area late on Monday and initially turning back, the 600ft long vessel passed through the waterway on Tuesday.

It then turned around and headed back to the Gulf at 11am UTC.

Rich Starry is a medium-range tanker that is carrying about 250,000 barrels of methanol, according to the data. It loaded the cargo at its last port of call, the UAE's Hamriyah, the data showed.


So..how will China react if the US Navy keep turning back chinese owned tankers..?

 

[Pondoro]

Home - Empire Wind

www.empirewind.com

Donald hate windmills..nevertheless is this project running offshore New York..

 

[mark-hunter]

So..how will China react if the US Navy keep turning back chinese owned tankers..?

There are plenty of uncertainties.
If the tanker kept its course, would it be fired upon? What are the rules of engagment?
If the tankers get interdicted and detained at high seas, where they will be given berth? And for how many impounded tankers there is a berth available, and where?

What if the tankers use the right of unharmful passage through Pakistani territorial waters?
Can China send their Navy to escort their tankers, maybe to form escorted convoys? What then?

Will they increase import of Russian oil?