|
Replies: 28
| visibility 351
|
All-TigerNet [12274]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5402
Joined: 9/12/04
|
US Energy Policy Discussion....
9
9
Apr 3, 2024, 10:49 AM
|
|
Up front - if you want to act like a chimp and fling poo, name call, make this about Trump or something else - then please take it to another thread. If you want to offer insight or some real discussion on US energy policy then please join in...
Here it goes... I contend that we currently have no realistic future energy policy in the USA. We are being taken down a path driven more by political rhetoric and emotion than reality. The Biden Administration has a stated policy of reducing fossil fuel energy production by 80% by 2030 with no fossil fuel production (carbon zero) by 2035.
In 2022 the sources of annual generation of US electricity was as follows (in Terrawatt hours):
Fossil fuel: 2,557 TWh
Nuclear energy: 772 TWh
Wind and solar: 639 TWh
Hydro-electric: 249 TWh
Total of the above electricity: 4217 TWh
Between nuclear, wind/solar, and hydroelectricity - the USA produced a total of 1,660 TWh of electricity. To get rid of fossil fuels we need an additional 2,557 TWh from those other listed "clean energy" sources just to meet 2022 electricity production numbers.
If we doubled the amount of 2022 nuclear, wind/solar, and hydroelectricity production by 2030 while reducing our fossil fuels production by 80% (fossil fuels would only produce 511 TWh in 2030) we would see a total of 3,831 TWh of electricity being produced. In 2030 we would be 386 TWh short of our 2022 electricity requirements even if our 2030 electricity needs were to remain at 2022 levels. Based on numerous factors we can reasonably expect the total US electricity requirements in 2030 to be greater than they were in 2022.
Herein lies my major problem with the green agenda and the Biden Administration's policies. I have yet to see any coherent plan that adequately addresses future electricity production. I have seen no indication that we will be doubling our nuclear, wind/solar, and hydro-electric electricity production over the next 6 years. Quite the contrary....
One of the key components of future carbon free energy production is nuclear power. If we are going to get off fossil fuels in the next 6 to 10 years - nuclear power is the only realistic current replacement that can produce enough reliable energy to replace the fossil fuels. Unlike other renewable energy (wind and solar) nuclear power is a 24/7, 365 energy source that currently provides 45% of our current carbon free energy.
A nuclear power facility takes 6 to 8 years just in construction time which does not include the total pre-construction planning and approvals. I think a reasonable estimate to go from an initial nuclear power facility proposal to a completed nuclear power plant would be 10 years - if everything goes according to plan. So in order to meet the Biden Administrations targets of 80% fossil free energy generation by 2030 and 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035 - where are we in regards to creating more nuclear power generation?
Well... according to the World Nuclear Association we are practically AWOL. We have ZERO nuclear power plants under construction, we have ZERO nuclear reactors planned, and we only have 13 proposals for a total of 10,500 Megawatts of electricity generation... In short - we aren't going to come anywhere close to doubling our current nuclear power production by 2035 much less 2030...
Where are we in creating more hydroelectricity? By the Biden Administration's own plan for hydroelectricity (The DOE's "Hydropower Vision") they only estimate increasing the 2015 hydroelectric capacity by 50% by 2050. So much for doubling the 2022 hydroelectric electrical output by 2030....
So... nuclear and hydro are somewhat out of the equation as a significant replacement for fossil fuels by 2030. That pretty much leaves just wind and solar to make up the difference for the Biden Administration's 80% reduction in fossil fuels. To do so with wind/solar will require roughly 4 times our current solar/wind electricity generation over the next 6 years. Does anyone seriously believe that is going to happen? And that is just to meet the 2022 electricity requirements...
Percolating on the edge of all this is that the Biden Administration has clearly expressed their intention to have 50% of our transportation requirements transition off fossil fuels and onto the electrical grid by 2030. Furthermore, they are pushing every regulatory button they can to force everything from home heating to cooking off of fossil fuels and onto the electrical grid by 2030 as well. There is no doubt that these Government mandated requirements are going to push more devices onto the the electrical grid and will absolutely increase our electricity consumption requirements in 2030 beyond the 2022 numbers above.
We are simply being led down an emotion driven policy path without any real overall plan to meet our current (much less future) energy needs without fossil fuels. Based on the numbers, the energy policies being pushed by the Biden Administration to reduce fossil fuel electricity production by 80% while simultaneously increasing the electrical grid requirements by 2030 are simply unrealistic. I have seen no real 6 year "green energy" plan that establishes a timeline that includes actual green energy source (nuclear, wind/solar, hydroelectric) construction by year with a production schedule of the amount energy each will be generating to meet the 2030/2035 Biden Administration goals.
Instead - all we have are huge generalities with no specifics and actual targets of increases in green energy production. The constant "we got to do something" climate change alarmism is driving an unrealistic policy in the Biden Administration. That is - the Biden Administration's policies are not realistic IF the middle class wants to maintain the same standard of living that we enjoy today.
I'll let this percolate for a while as I'll be away from TNet most of day....
Sources:
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
https://ourworldindata.org/energy
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [119794]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54520
Joined: 6/24/09
|
No one in here that supports Biden will respond***
1
Apr 3, 2024, 11:11 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47123
Joined: 3/18/07
|
There's like only two people in this whole forum that support him.***
1
Apr 3, 2024, 11:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47123
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Nuclear is the only way. And no administration recently has supported it.***
3
Apr 3, 2024, 11:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7226]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9463
Joined: 12/18/13
|
It's making a comeback.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 12:38 PM
|
|
Fukushima scared people away, but it's the only real solution in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47123
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Hoping small modular reactors start being approved by the NRC.
2
Apr 3, 2024, 12:43 PM
|
|
Only way it can be done in a reasonable timeframe; however, you run into more issues with spent fuel storage sporadically located at the different small modular sites.
We couldn't have a Fukushima disaster in the US fortunately, but the one thing the world learned was to have portable emergency generators that are a tertiary power source locked away and secure within a deployable location offsite.
Either way, it is lagging still from the growing energy demands. The requirements and drive to improve will help accelerate and make it happen though, but we won't hit any of the marks they've been trying to set, and that might be intentional. It does draw out some idiots like NCTIgerFan23 though, so it's slightly entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7226]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9463
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: Hoping small modular reactors start being approved by the NRC.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 12:48 PM
|
|
I saw where the Biden administration was trying to restart the plant in Michigan. I don't know how many shuttered facilities there are that can be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13175]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14192
Joined: 11/2/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47123
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Nice name call there, thanks.***
Apr 3, 2024, 8:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4807]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4856
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: US Energy Policy Discussion....
1
Apr 3, 2024, 11:23 AM
|
|
Once you realize the push for electric is more about centralized control than it is saving the planet all of the inconsistencies, exaggerations and outright lies make much more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47123
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Well that's not true, lol.***
1
Apr 3, 2024, 11:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1382]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1833
Joined: 1/2/20
|
Re: US Energy Policy Discussion....
2
1
Apr 3, 2024, 11:54 AM
|
|
Another huge reason I would never vote for Biden. His entire administration is a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3725]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6092
Joined: 10/20/00
|
The answer is simple
Apr 3, 2024, 12:11 PM
|
|
Create a new source of power. This would restore our place in the world and be a 50 year plus economic dynamo, as we first covert our energy use, then the rest of the world's.
Smashing atoms comes to mind as our best shot at it, but maybe converting hydrogen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81129]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56208
Joined: 9/13/04
|
Zero point energy is the answer***
Apr 3, 2024, 12:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [138089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63856
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Fossil fuels are untenable.
2
Apr 3, 2024, 1:01 PM
|
|
I think most everybody who isn't in the Exxon C-suite would agree with that. However, we're so entrenched (the world, not just the US) and reliant on it that being free of fossil fuels by 2030 is laughable. Even 2040 is simply not realistic. And everybody knows this, including the Biden admin. Setting unattainable goals is about establishing the mindset that our energy generation and consumption model HAS to change, even if we don't know what the source and mix and a thousand other variables will actually be.
Some of it is developmental and largely unknown, like where battery tech, capability, and renewability will be in 10 years. Lithium isn't tenable, but to believe lithium batteries are the best we're ever going to have is just incorrect. Some of it is known, like nuclear, and requires that the general US acceptance of the safety and efficacy of the Gen IV tech comes around quickly, because as you said, we don't stand those up and start producing in a year.
Anyway...it doesn't matter what Biden's administration says, there is no way we're even close to being done with FF in the next 10-15 years, and it doesn't matter if we don't meet an arbitrary 2030 or 2035 or 2040 deadline. We need to focus on sustainable energy production though, and that's what these "decrees" are about. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24832]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42612
Joined: 7/31/10
|
You left out the part about tanking the current US economy. All that government
Apr 3, 2024, 9:00 PM
|
|
incentive money being spilt on EVs is going to dry up with nothing functionally accomplished.
They should have started with an upgrade of the grid, addition of EV charging network, and a transitional stage, if not permanent, via hybrids.
Standardized nukes ARE the way to go until they "master" fusion.
Oh... you can leave my XOM out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31937]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37222
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't agree that fossil fuel is untenable...
2
Apr 3, 2024, 10:14 PM
[ in reply to Fossil fuels are untenable. ] |
|
We should be investing in cleaner fossil fuel generation instead of simply retiring coal and NG plants and focusing only on renewables.
The problem is, in the current political climate, cleaner coal and NG investment is all but banned.
The lack of scalable and economic battery storage systems is one of the main limits to expanding renewables.
And we're struggling to keep up with forced retirement of ff plants, not to mention the increasing load requirements. US electricity usage has been flat for 20 yrs and we're about to return to the same slope of increasing demand that we saw from the 60's to 2000.
Also, there are growing issues in manufacturing capacity for grid equipment. HV breakers and large power transformers are now running in the 4 yr range for lead-time and the IRA and IIJA haven't even really hit yet.
What's not being talked about enough is the impact on smaller renewables plants located far away from loads is doing to the demand of grid equipment. I sat on an industry panel discussion at a recent conference and a recent study shows that the current renewables push over ff and nuclear generation requires about 5-8 times more grid equipment per MWh. That is HUGE and is going to limit things severely over the coming years. It's good for our business, but it's becoming clearer every day that something is going to have to give.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12274]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5402
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Re: I don't agree that fossil fuel is untenable...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 9:41 AM
|
|
Lot of good info there....
What I'm afraid we are being driven to is the typical cart before the horse scenario. We are rushing to shut off existing power without suitable replacement due to the political extremes driving the agenda. I'm not seeing a rational, well thought out planning and a realistic implementation of energy policy.
What I see coming is a train wreck where the "something that is going to have to give" will be the middle and lower classes standard of living.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2107]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 1895
Joined: 1/7/00
|
Believe it or not, I somewhat agree with you...
1
1
Apr 3, 2024, 1:08 PM
|
|
I think his IRA bill, which subsidized green energy, was a good step forward. And worldwide, renewable energy is getting cheaper than alot of the carbon-based forms. However, in terms of how we're going to get from Point A to Point B within a certain period of time, I don't see that happening. The targets are too aggressive.
I do think more nuclear is part of the solution. The Left used to hate nuclear energy, but I think that opposition has softened some in recent years, certainly compared to where it was after three-mile island and such.
I would like to point out that US oil & gas production is currently the highest it's ever been. We're exporting more than we import, i.e., we're "energy independent" with regard to fossil fuels. And we'll have to continue using fossil fuels while we transition.
A reasonable approach forward is to stick to targets that are do-able, and make sure we ramp up not only solar/wind/geo-thermal, but also nuclear.
One political nitpick with you: If we're going to address climate change, we need both political parties willing to admit that it's happening and that something needs to be done. Right now, we only have one party engaging on the issue. We need both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12595]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6316
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: US Energy Policy Discussion....
1
Apr 3, 2024, 4:22 PM
|
|
Excellent points. Additionally, will it make a significant difference if we can't convince China and India to quit building coal fired plants and to actually replace these plants with other sources of electricity?
China produces 1/2 of the world's coal powered generation of electricity and is continuing to build these plants at a rapid pace.
3/4 of India's electricity is generated from coal powered plants.
Unless and until change occurs in Asia, it will not matter much what we do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2107]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 1895
Joined: 1/7/00
|
We will definitely need China & India's help....
1
Apr 3, 2024, 7:47 PM
|
|
The US can't solve this alone. But we can do is get our internal house in order, and show some leadership on the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16264]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12789
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Re: US Energy Policy Discussion....
1
Apr 3, 2024, 6:59 PM
|
|
No fossil fuel production by 2035 is not realistic in any way and needs a big revision on a timeline basis. Zero is also a poor target for any circumstance. I suspect he knows this.
Nuclear power on the smaller scale is a great path forward. Simply designing and building these would foster technological innovations along the way that could propel this method even further, and quicker.
I'm totally fine with big national investments in the infrastructure behind EV adoption. It's a solid way forward for personal and public transit to cut down on pollutants and enhance air quality, and the world is going that way. The technology has always made a lot of sense, but without critical mass it couldn't work. The critical mass exists now, so taking the reins and giving America a boost in leading that industry will pay off bigly. China is the frontrunner here and leader. Do we really want to sit back and let them own that future? No.
At the end of the day, we're producing more fossil fuels than ever before, now. That will change when demand changes, as it will, and that's okay with me. Talking goals and exciting the green crowd is what it is. Once he took office, what's come from his administration has been a lot more practical, and realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5703]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12180
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: US Energy Policy Discussion....
1
Apr 3, 2024, 7:05 PM
|
|
Agree with most. This is more of a political discussion than technological or otherwise. I do not believe many in the Biden Admin are aware their stupid goal of getting rid of fossil fuels is, well, stupid.
Gov't officials and politicians are dumber than ever. They know less, but think they know more.
The left's strategy of making everything an emotional emergency is a big problem. The average person doesn't know what is what. The average person cannot find truth and is not mentally/educationally equipped to find truth on these complex issues. Social media tells them what their opinion is.
If the climate zealots are indeed correct, they are the ones responsible for it because they killed nuclear power at the time when it should have taken over. That and the leftist's giant gov't bureaucracy that can't get out of its own way to build a new nuclear power plant. The bloated federal gov't has more people getting paid to delay progress than to make progress, so don't wait on any real fixes from the feds.
The average person and avg TNetter cannot fathom the volume of regulations federal bureaucrats put out and require companies to follow. It's asinine, and you can only know about it if you are involved in it.
We are the lucky ones - living during the time-o-plenty. Maybe rational people will prevail in the next generation or two and the populous comes to its senses. If I were a betting man, I'd bet against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17324]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14271
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Natural Gas including LNG should be emphasized as bridge fossil fuels
3
Apr 3, 2024, 7:14 PM
|
|
… to eliminate coal and oil for electrical generation. Conventional nuclear including small modular reactors should be fast tracked to bridge the time (50 years) to fusion. Electrical transmission infrastructure upgrades are needed to reduce losses and increase capacity of the grid especially to renewable sources. Emphasis on reducing fossil fuel demand is fine but the timeline needs to match technology development and economic realities. Supply side restrictions in the US such as restrictions on pipelines, LNG export assets, leases don’t make a lot of sense in a global energy market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11042]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8011
Joined: 10/18/16
|
Re: US Energy Policy Discussion....
Apr 3, 2024, 10:19 PM
|
|
Error post
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11042]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8011
Joined: 10/18/16
|
Re: US Energy Policy Discussion....
1
Apr 3, 2024, 10:43 PM
|
|
Nuclear is the way to go and needs to triple current output in the next 10 to 20 years. The government, specifically the NRC, has paper worked the process into a full blown goat rope with no help from the utilities by selecting different designs and OEMs. Nuclear safety cannot be compromised but the process can and needs to be streamlined.
China is averaging about 6 years to complete a reactor from construction to testing and start up. In the US, from design approval, construction, testing and start up and all the other approvals along the way it averaged about 15 years. The last 2 units to go line were Vogtle Units 3 and 4 and started construction in 2009. Unit 3 came on line July 2023 and Unit 4 came on line March 2024.
Hopefully, small modular reactors will not end up in same government red tape
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12274]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5402
Joined: 9/12/04
|
I was gone all day yesterday and just got back to this thread this morning....
2
Apr 4, 2024, 10:19 AM
|
|
Thanks for all the comments and keeping it civil. I wish we could have more of this in the P&R board...
I have serious concerns on where we are headed with US energy policy and the solutions. Unfortunately, like most of our Governance these days, we have the two extremes controlling the agenda.
On the left we have the climate alarmists who want to take immediate draconian measures on fossil fuels and d.a.m.n. the consequences. The US standard of living? - doesn't matter; the US economy? - doesn't matter; the negative impacts to future US growth? - doesn't matter. They are largely un-serious people who have no real answers and they simply emotionalize the whole energy discussion into such a fear mongering state that it impossible to have a rational discussion. They are an impediment to establishing a realistic energy future in the USA.
On the right, we have the forever fossil fuel advocates who refuse to acknowledge that fossil fuels have an overall negative environmental impact. They have their hands fully buried in the fossil fuel industry's pockets and ignore that there is a finite limit to fossil fuels of which we had better be finding a suitable replacement - the sooner the better. They too are an impediment to establishing a realistic energy future for the USA.
I am an "all of the above" person when it comes to energy. I have no loyalty to fossil fuels so long as we have a viable alternative in place, producing energy, when we shut fossil fuels off.
Like most on this thread, I too see nuclear power as the only near term, realistic solution for electrical power generation. We already have a viable nuclear power know-how with even safer, more promising nuclear energy processes on the horizon. Yet there is no real US plan to exploit our nuclear power expertise and instead we allow the political extremes on the left and right to continue to kill it. Isn't it interesting that China has 27 nuclear power plants scheduled to come on line within the next 10 years and ZERO in the USA.... I find that to be energy malpractice through our very own US energy policies.
So - the new question is:
1. How do we get to a realistic energy policy in the USA with realistic timelines that properly coordinates the required grid improvements, required energy storage capacities, and power generation while not diminishing our standard of living in the process?
2. How do we remove the current impediments (the extremes of the left and right) from the discussion to actually come up with a realistic, viable energy plan that allows us to not only maintain our standard of living but to take it to even higher levels?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11975]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10548
Joined: 9/19/01
|
I remember peak oil
Apr 4, 2024, 4:18 PM
|
|
back in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s.
I believe we now have more than ever.
And carbon dioxide is plant food.
But I'm in favor of cheap nukulur energy also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16689
Joined: 9/1/12
|
Here in SW Michigan got me my nuclear plant 30 minutes away
Apr 4, 2024, 10:25 AM
|
|
And yes, is serious post. She’s a fine facility as far as Inknow.
http://www.cookinfo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 28
| visibility 351
|
|
|
50
