UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

I jest. We all know just how much you were bothered by (checks notes) wind energy.

I live on Lake Michigan where the idiots have been pushing to desecrate out country's greatest natural resource and one of its' greatest natural wonders because they don't have to buy the land - just get the lib gov's approval.
There is one large project in the area on land as well which ruined some of the most pristine natural wonderland in the lower 48.
If you understood what they do to put them in - strip the land, sell the top soil which took 10k years to generate, cut the trees, pour in cement and rebar that will remain there forever and make the lad unusable on those spots, kills the birds - particularly eagles,
then put in the monstrosity that is out of date already but a deal was cut, and use more oil to produce it, transport it, lubricate it, and have a constantly running deisel engine in the base of each of them to act as a wind brake for when strong gusts happen...

...and of course it was not put in an area with good wind - merely the area with the least number of politically powerful people to block i, and where power lines were already available so that they didn't have spend some of their own clean energy govt subsidy cash - they look for the lowest overhead, least resistance spots, not the ones that could have any chance of being more effective.

Then the energy company get a 75 million dollar govt check for achieving "renewable energy milestones".

And guess what? Not only don't they ever even make up for the carbon footprint that it cost to make them, but they are spread out over massive areas and are inefficient by comparison.

I could go on, but I know your attention span.

Bottom line: There is no scientifically logical replacement for oil at this point not named nuclear (another thing that Trump has been pushing in a way that previous presidents wouldn't.

(no message)

... his support of the reopening of Three Mile Island. My guess is that any loans involved will have a better chance of being paid back than Obama’s $535 million Solyndra debacle.

The plant will power a data center and plans to help reduce strain on the grid. Hopefully, success will generate more interest in a safe nuclear alternative.

Again, resulting in … Winning for America.

are not going to invest in it when there are better alternatives. Btw, Biden and the Democratic Party put billions for Advanced Nuclear Power Programs into the Inflation Reduction Act.

For the short term, natural gas is sufficient and much cleaner than coal.

(no message)

Link: https://x.com/jamesmelville/status/1983515915669864746?s=61

'Dispatchable' power. I posted awhile ago the 2018 experience in the UK...a 13 day calm period eliminated all wind power there...had it not been for other sources, it would have required over $1T just to pay for enough battery power to last those 13 days...and then pray that the batteries could recharge before another calm period.

That being said, Coal isn't the answer to our energy future...and Utilities know it...they aren't going to invest in new coal plants; Trump is just chumming for votes from his uninformed base.

Note also that Texas...on its own volition...has built Wind Turbines for specific reasons...i.e. abundant and 'reliable' wind on its plains, plus a transmission infrastructure that's suitable.

..from the attached article...
------------------
There Are Better Ways to Meet US Power Demand

More coal is not the answer to today's energy challenges. What the U.S. needs to keep prices down, meet rising demand and stay competitive on a global scale is: 1) to build wind, solar and batteries rapidly now, because they are the quickest to install and least expensive source of energy in many regions; and 2) to scale up clean, firm power — a variety of low-carbon sources, including next-generation geothermal, nuclear and hydropower, that can operate around the clock.

Investing in clean energy today makes good financial sense. The cost of building new renewables can be less than operating coal; indeed, research has shown that the majority of U.S. coal plants would be more expensive to continue running than to replace with local wind or solar. Scaling these sources will also be key to supporting the administration's goal of "energy dominance" in a world that's increasingly investing in renewables.

Despite current headwinds, including the early phase-out of key federal tax credits, U.S. wind and solar are still expected to grow in the coming years. In its latest energy infrastructure report, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission forecasts that the U.S. will add 92.6 gigawatts (GW) of new solar and 22.6 GW of new wind between August 2025 and July 2028 — enough to power more than 25 million homes. It also forecasts that no new coal will be built over this period, while 25 GW of existing coal capacity and 13.7 GW of natural gas capacity are set to retire.

There are also opportunities to ramp up investment in clean power sources beyond wind and solar and to increase the efficiency of the grid. Technologies such as nuclear and advanced geothermal already benefit from bipartisan support in Congress and could potentially represent a significant percentage of the country's future energy mix. In addition, new transmission technologies can help modernize the aging grid and increase its efficiency, helping to move more power along existing lines and accommodate rapidly growing demand.

Now is the time to make smart, forward-looking investments in energy that's safe, affordable, reliable and abundant — rather than clinging to systems of the past that will raise costs for consumers.
----------------

Bottom Line...Utilities are not going to commit capital to new coal plants for grid level power when advanced GEN-IV Nuclear Plant technology is due to arrive in 4-5 yrs. Baron is a MAGA...ergo, he avoids data, facts and reason.

BTW...It was the Biden admin that started and funded the project to find more rare earth minerals...as always, Trump takes credit for stuff he didn't have anything to do with.


Link: https://www.wri.org/insights/trump-coal-plant-extension-cost-impacts