And that just the start, the cost of chasing wind and solar may eventually triple the cost of electricity, while using natural gas as a bridge to nuclear could lower the cost while getting us free of coal faster.
I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.
View all posts by Don Tabor
Published
17 thoughts on “LTE: Expect 26% increase in cost of electricity”
The REAL question is “Do you think the Trump Florida properties have already submitted applications for emergency funds?”
The LTE author believed he was spending $360/yr foolishly for an increase in a utility bill. I merely pointed out that he’s spending $1000 to $1500/yr foolishly for the tariff whims of an idiot (Trump by another name).
While the use of natural gas will continue to increase and be with us for some time, a transition to nuclear power instead of “renewables” would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. This link touches on a few of the most troubling and is worth a read.
I read that article but I found none of the points convincing.
The number of sites where wind power works(consistent wind over 13 mph.) are few, and insufficient to ever meet our needs, Even what capacity is available requires fossil fuel backup. Relying too much on wind and solar means NEVER transitioning away from fossil fuel.
Nuclear, on the other hand, can carry the load and does not require fossil fuel backup. With inclusion of Thorium, we have a lot of reserves.
Every dome we waste on wind and solar is ultimately wasted, and leaves us facing the day when fossil fuel for backups runs out.
Nuclear is, when not held in court for decades of delay, cheap, clean and plentiful.
I checked the bona fides of the referenced researches and I’ll lean toward their knowledge and expertise.
As to “NEVER transitioning away from fossil fuel” , I believe the science will get considerably better and less expensive as more clever monkeys get involved.
Actually, I don’t think more clever monkeys will get involved. Given the atmospheric mix and temperature range because of fossil fuels, maybe in 10,000,000 years a clever insect perhaps?
RE: “I don’t think more clever monkeys will get involved.”
Why so negative? There is no shortage of clever monkeys.
Climate change is not nearly as apocalyptic as media makes it out to be, and it is well known, even to our dullest monkeys, that wind and solar are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels.
Even under these circumstances there is much cause for optimism. Engineering solutions for power generation are abundant.
“not nearly as apocalyptic as media makes it out to be,”
I, personally, don’t listen to “talking heads” rant about Climate Change issues (or much else for that matter), but the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the issue are concerned greatly.
I read their work and conclusions and THAT is what concerns me.
“I read that article but I found none of the points convincing.”
I seriously doubt you would because the article does not feed into your preconceived notion of what needs to be done irt Climate Change. You are too entrenched in your position to have your mind changed. Until that time that your grandchildren suffer the consequences, by which time we will both be long gone.
We could, in fact, go 100% nuclear for electricity, but we can never go 100% wind and solar. Wind and solar will always need dispatchable backup because they are unreliable.
In terms of CO2 emissions, the lowest path is natural gas as a bridge to nuclear.
Every dollar wasted on wind and solar will, because of the need for fossil fuel backup and their expense, which keeps aging coal plants on line longer, result in more total CO2 emitted.
‘All of the above’ implies endless capital. Public utilities do not have endless capital, and even if they did, the rate increases required for ‘all of the above’ would result in prohibitively high rates.
Every dollar spent on windmills and solar, which are dead ends, is a dollar that cannot go to expanding natural gas and nuclear capability.
Worse, the capital costs of wind and solar are so high for the capacity added that they result in aging coal plants remaining online longer.
Utility capital should go first to replacing coal with natural gas, and then to nuclear, and not a dime should be wasted on wind and solar if your goal is truly to lower co2 emissions as rapidly as possible.
Wind and solar serve no purpose other than to enrich those who sell them, or the carbon credit schemes attached to them. They are pure cronyism.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The REAL question is “Do you think the Trump Florida properties have already submitted applications for emergency funds?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, it’s not that bad when compared to the tariff cost.
Oh boy, oh boy. Now where can I spend my Trump Tax break?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Both of those comments are off topic and not responsive to the thread.
LikeLike
Oh, I beg to differ on this string.
The LTE author believed he was spending $360/yr foolishly for an increase in a utility bill. I merely pointed out that he’s spending $1000 to $1500/yr foolishly for the tariff whims of an idiot (Trump by another name).
How’s that wall coming? Who’s paying?
LikeLiked by 1 person
While the use of natural gas will continue to increase and be with us for some time, a transition to nuclear power instead of “renewables” would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. This link touches on a few of the most troubling and is worth a read.
https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-oppose-nuclear-energy
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read that article but I found none of the points convincing.
The number of sites where wind power works(consistent wind over 13 mph.) are few, and insufficient to ever meet our needs, Even what capacity is available requires fossil fuel backup. Relying too much on wind and solar means NEVER transitioning away from fossil fuel.
Nuclear, on the other hand, can carry the load and does not require fossil fuel backup. With inclusion of Thorium, we have a lot of reserves.
Every dome we waste on wind and solar is ultimately wasted, and leaves us facing the day when fossil fuel for backups runs out.
Nuclear is, when not held in court for decades of delay, cheap, clean and plentiful.
LikeLike
I checked the bona fides of the referenced researches and I’ll lean toward their knowledge and expertise.
As to “NEVER transitioning away from fossil fuel” , I believe the science will get considerably better and less expensive as more clever monkeys get involved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, I don’t think more clever monkeys will get involved. Given the atmospheric mix and temperature range because of fossil fuels, maybe in 10,000,000 years a clever insect perhaps?
LikeLike
RE: “I don’t think more clever monkeys will get involved.”
Why so negative? There is no shortage of clever monkeys.
Climate change is not nearly as apocalyptic as media makes it out to be, and it is well known, even to our dullest monkeys, that wind and solar are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels.
Even under these circumstances there is much cause for optimism. Engineering solutions for power generation are abundant.
LikeLike
“not nearly as apocalyptic as media makes it out to be,”
I, personally, don’t listen to “talking heads” rant about Climate Change issues (or much else for that matter), but the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the issue are concerned greatly.
I read their work and conclusions and THAT is what concerns me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I read that article but I found none of the points convincing.”
I seriously doubt you would because the article does not feed into your preconceived notion of what needs to be done irt Climate Change. You are too entrenched in your position to have your mind changed. Until that time that your grandchildren suffer the consequences, by which time we will both be long gone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What does that have to do with climate change?
We could, in fact, go 100% nuclear for electricity, but we can never go 100% wind and solar. Wind and solar will always need dispatchable backup because they are unreliable.
In terms of CO2 emissions, the lowest path is natural gas as a bridge to nuclear.
Every dollar wasted on wind and solar will, because of the need for fossil fuel backup and their expense, which keeps aging coal plants on line longer, result in more total CO2 emitted.
LikeLike
“we can never go 100% wind and solar”
“Never” is a long time, please see “clever monkeys”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
No matter how clever the monkeys, physics imposes limits.
LikeLike
Certainly..
Half empty Donald?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for making my point about being closed minded about renewable energy sources.
And I have previously stated that nuclear should be part of an “all of the above, less fossil fuels” strategy.
LikeLike
‘All of the above’ implies endless capital. Public utilities do not have endless capital, and even if they did, the rate increases required for ‘all of the above’ would result in prohibitively high rates.
Every dollar spent on windmills and solar, which are dead ends, is a dollar that cannot go to expanding natural gas and nuclear capability.
Worse, the capital costs of wind and solar are so high for the capacity added that they result in aging coal plants remaining online longer.
Utility capital should go first to replacing coal with natural gas, and then to nuclear, and not a dime should be wasted on wind and solar if your goal is truly to lower co2 emissions as rapidly as possible.
Wind and solar serve no purpose other than to enrich those who sell them, or the carbon credit schemes attached to them. They are pure cronyism.
LikeLike