Energy Discussion

[Sonog]

Unpopular opinion in some circles: if you don't take nuclear power seriously or outright oppose it, then you don't take climate change seriously.

My instinct is to sing nuclear energy's praises, but isn't the real issue the hurdle of the massive upfront investment? Which might have been as bad if we continued investing in the development of nuclear power, but we didn't because of the negative public sentiment, oil/gas lobbying, etc.

Is it also the idea that getting the electricity to where it needs to be is still a big issue so its better to have lots of small power sources close to the demand rather than massive powerplants that can't efficiently transport their power far distance?

 

[Gonzo08]

I think a lot of people’s knowledge of nuclear energy comes from either The Simpsons or The China Syndrome. And, of course, Chernobyl for the newer generation.

Haven’t watched Chernobyl but the first two certainly don’t portray it in a flattering light.

Education of the general public is definitely an issue here. There are currently several new reactor styles being developed that will bring nuclear power into the 21st Century and are much safer than 1960s era reactors, many of which are still in service.

When he's not busy trying to inject microchips into the American people via Covid-19 vaccines, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has put considerable funding into one of the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor programs.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Education of the general public is definitely an issue here. There are currently several new reactor styles being developed that will bring nuclear power into the 21st Century and are much safer than 1960s era reactors, many of which are still in service.

When he's not busy trying to inject microchips into the American people via Covid-19 vaccines, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has put considerable funding into one of the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor programs.

Terrapower had several former USN nukes working on that project/at the company, I would like to be one of them.

 

[Randy Daytona]

The incoming Biden administration signals they will cancel the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Getting Canadian bitumen to the market will be more difficult and more expensive (rail). Wonder if the Gulf Coast refineries will be making adjustments? As for Canada, Alberta had already spent quite a bit on construction - this can’t be good for the Canadian economy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/biden-keystone-xl-1.5877038

 

[Flash]

I am slightly less concerned with the environmental impacts of fracking, offshore drilling, nat gas, etc. for two reasons:

1) energy independence - no more foreign wars for oil, and reduced revenue to foreign oil producers like Iran, KSA, Russia, Venezuela.

While we may be able to produce more energy domestically 'energy independence' doesn't decouple our energy markets from the rest of the world, even though natural gas is still more locally priced oil prices are set by the international market and we have very little influence over it. And since it is, largely, an open market countries that are oil producers still make a lot of money even if we don't buy. Sanctions can bite but plenty of countries still need oil and often don't care where it comes from.

 

[Griz882]

The incoming Biden administration signals they will cancel the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Getting Canadian bitumen to the market will be more difficult and more expensive (rail). Wonder if the Gulf Coast refineries will be making adjustments? As for Canada, Alberta had already spent quite a bit on construction - this can’t be good for the Canadian economy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/biden-keystone-xl-1.5877038

I know that is a "First 100 Days" thing but I wonder what his executive order will actually say. The thing is basically done with the exception of Phase 4 and I believe a lot of Phase 4 infrastructure is well under way. The Canadians aren't going to be happy.

 

[ABMD]

Holy Crap, I take a weekend off to watch Football and split wood (to use as fuel in my fireplace) and I come back to 3 pages of energy discussion. Nice.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I know that is a "First 100 Days" thing but I wonder what his executive order will actually say. The thing is basically done with the exception of Phase 4 and I believe a lot of Phase 4 infrastructure is well under way. The Canadians aren't going to be happy.

Canada has invested a lot of time and money into this so no they will not be happy, especially since fuels comprise over 20% of their exports.

 

[ABMD]

My instinct is to sing nuclear energy's praises, but isn't the real issue the hurdle of the massive upfront investment? Which might have been as bad if we continued investing in the development of nuclear power, but we didn't because of the negative public sentiment, oil/gas lobbying, etc.

Is it also the idea that getting the electricity to where it needs to be is still a big issue so its better to have lots of small power sources close to the demand rather than massive powerplants that can't efficiently transport their power far distance?

I also happen to work for the large operator/owner of reactors in the US. My former company also had a JV with EDF (big nuke operator in France). Years ago, maybe a decade now?? the US was issuing loan guarantees for anyone who applied to build a new reactor, it was going to be a Nuclear Renaissance. We got our application submitted and was like 1 of 2 companies to do it, Southern Co is the other. Anyway, along with your application was a collateral requirement. Needless to say, when we say the requirement we said "eff no". That free guarantee wasn't free after all. Southern is still building their reactor, and is sickeningly over budget ($14BILLION over) and years behind schedule.

Nuclear is being crushed due to the cost of natural gas. Natural gas has a direct impact on electric prices as it the main source for electric generation. So, as long as gas prices stay low, nuclear will continue to be nonviable (free market economically speaking). The only way to save it is through subsidies for being carbon free (like carbon-free credits). Look at what's happening in Illinois right now, 2 nukes have already been scheduled to be mothballed due to lack of subsidies.

 

[taxi1]

The tar sands is some nasty stuff.

 

[ABMD]

I also happen to work for the large operator/owner of reactors in the US. My former company also had a JV with EDF (big nuke operator in France). Years ago, maybe a decade now?? the US was issuing loan guarantees for anyone who applied to build a new reactor, it was going to be a Nuclear Renaissance. We got our application submitted and was like 1 of 2 companies to do it, Southern Co is the other. Anyway, along with your application was a collateral requirement. Needless to say, when we say the requirement we said "eff no". That free guarantee wasn't free after all. Southern is still building their reactor, and is sickeningly over budget ($14BILLION over) and years behind schedule.

Nuclear is being crushed due to the cost of natural gas. Natural gas has a direct impact on electric prices as it the main source for electric generation. So, as long as gas prices stay low, nuclear will continue to be nonviable (free market economically speaking). The only way to save it is through subsidies for being carbon free (like carbon-free credits). Look at what's happening in Illinois right now, 2 nukes have already been scheduled to be mothballed due to lack of subsidies.

It has been said, we need to see natural gas around $6 for nuclear to be economical again (every plant/operator is different of course). Natural Gas hasn't seen the north side of $6 in a long time...like a decade, and looking out the curve it is nowhere in sight. Although, more restrictions on drilling and transportation could cause prices to rise due to uncertainty.

 

[Griz882]

It has been said, we need to see natural gas around $6 for nuclear to be economical again (every plant/operator is different of course). Natural Gas hasn't seen the north side of $6 in a long time...like a decade, and looking out the curve it is nowhere in sight. Although, more restrictions on drilling and transportation could case prices to rise due to uncertainty.

I have been reading California’s carbon-free plans and they don’t really make sense. They are shifting, rather gleefully, to an all-electric system but aren’t identifying how they will produce enough electricity. One mention was purchasing power from a (carbon spewing) plant just across the border in Arizona but that is just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. If CA actually does eliminate natural gas then I imagine the prices will go even lower.

 

[ABMD]

ABMD can expound upon it more, but the US has the lowest electricity rates (California excepted) in the industrialized world due to the glut of natural gas. Also, because natural gas is so cheap here, it is my understanding that a large portion of the stateside petrochemical industry has switched from using petroleum as a feedstock to natural gas, again giving the US another competitive advantage.



I am not so sure. The plan of action seems to go after the pipelines making the movement of energy more difficult, renewable energy mandates forcing utilities to forego cheap natural gas and even outright banning the installation of gas for heating and cooking in new construction.

Berkeley, California...let them burn. California is a dumpster fire when it comes to energy management. On the East Coast, Montgomery County, MD is trying something similar (also a bastion of liberalism). People care about $$$, and natural gas is very cheap relative to electricity especially when it comes to residential heating (which is the largest use in residential applications) and has a direct impact on peoples pocketbook.

 

[ABMD]

I have been reading California’s carbon-free plans and they don’t really make sense. They are shifting, rather gleefully, to an all-electric system but aren’t identifying how they will produce enough electricity. One mention was purchasing power from a (carbon spewing) plant just across the border in Arizona but that is just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. If CA actually does eliminate natural gas then I imagine the prices will go even lower.

The problem with any of these plans that eliminate natural gas, is the infrastructure is already in place for gas. Do you really think someone will go to every door that is serviced with gas and force them to switch to electricity? Nationally, natural gas makes up close to 50% of home heating fuel. Think about that, half of every freaking house in the US has natural gas. Not to mention, who is going to pay for the conversion for the low income customers? It's just shows how out of touch with reality some of these people (elected officials) in DC really are.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

The appendices of Peter Zeihan's book The Absent Superpower have a pretty good discussion of green energy's shortcomings with actual numbers to back it up (not sure if they're cited since I listened to it on Audible). The first part of that book will also teach you everything you need to know about shale. Long story short, green energy isn't anywhere close to being able to supplant petroleum as an energy provider locally or globally for a whole host of reasons across a wide spectrum.