ProvenReserves

100% - load following BWRs, baseload PWRs, existing wind and solar, with gas being replaced by storage and nuclear as it comes online is the grid of the future. I am all for solar too. I am planning a 14.4 kw array for house with batteries that will provide about 90% of my homes needs. The problem is the 100% renewable zealots and their alliance with the people who think natural gas is going to last forever.

@ProvenReserves @fjc0000 @I_Said_Meh_ @7Kiwi No we need to push forward with renewables and nuclear, i work in this industry so I know how important it is.

Then had a nationwide blackout.

@fjc0000 @I_Said_Meh_ @ScottyGB77 @7Kiwi No one is demanding that renewables be abandoned, only that a more realistic approach to the grid and accepting the limitations of inverter based resources and the demands of an industrial economy.

@I_Said_Meh_ @ScottyGB77 @7Kiwi the blackout was a tecnhical problem that can be solved no reason to abandon renewables

@nukebarbarian @GovPritzker

“We’re the best state in the country if you are a nuclear developer to build. Because we don’t have the NIMBY problem in Illinois. We already have nuclear. We want more and more.” @GovPritzker 🔥🔥🔥 Now let's clarify permitting so we can build faster: permittingscorecard.com/dashboard

@nukebarbarian @GovPritzker Bring the ABWR to Illinois. 7 out of 11 units are already BWRs. Clinton unit 2! Rebuild Zion. Replace all this coal with ABWRs.

Disappointing news. If I understand this article correctly, North Dakota does effectively have a ban on new nuclear construction. Most sources list it as a state that does not have a moratorium. Article link in reply. Key quote: "Current law prohibits any storage of high level radioactive waste in the state.... That would have to change if policymakers hope to encourage nuclear development." In other words, any nuclear plants in the state would not be allowed to generate waste. Storage of the waste, even at the nuclear plant site, is apparently not allowed! A few things I feel a need to clarify, in response to this article: Very much unlike the old (50s - 60s Cold War) weapons program, nuclear POWER waste has never harmed anyone. Meanwhile, other (fossil) sources have always caused significant environmental, and public health, harm. Coal ash piles alone pose a far greater hazard to local communities than nuclear waste ever will. And yet, those sources have always been allowed. It goes without saying that new nuclear plants will only be sited near supportive communities. Nuclear plants have always had far more support than hosting centralized nuclear waste disposal or storage facilities. (Far more jobs, less stigma, etc....) And yet, finding willing local communities for waste facilities actually has not been that big of a problem. Lack of state govt. support has always been the main barrier. Finding local communities to host nuclear plants will not be a problem at all. Nowadays, communities are actually competing to host new nuclear plants. Solar and wind farms are facing larger degrees of NIMBY resistence. And finally, even if we did have trouble getting enough local communuity support for new nuclear plants at new (virgin) sites, the US still would be able to meet its triple nuclear by 2050 pledge. A Biden DoE analysis showed that there is room for 200 GW of new nuclear at existing nuclear plant sites, and at retired coal plant sites. Polling shows that local support for new nuclear plants, at such sites, is overwhelming.

Energiewende has become a gigantic subsidy swamp. Simply disgusting.

@dorfman_p I guess you need to delete your account and stop posting on the internet. Gotta get your carbon footprint to net zero professor.

CO2 from UK data centres could be ‘hundreds of times’ higher than thought carbonbrief.org/analysis-co2-f…

Germany was a large energy exporter until they disabled their nuclear power plants. They had room for industrial expansion, but instead destroyed their own growth.

@e2dot7182818284 @janrosenow Meanwhile..

@ProvenReserves @janrosenow Also: ⬇️QT What has not come down? Price wise? Or increased it's share globally? A hint in pic

Incumbent German electricity suppliers said in 1993 that renewables could not provide more than 4% of electricity in the long run. In 2025, renewables provided 55.9% of Germany's electricity — 14 times the predicted ceiling.

Hard core environmental groups still HATE this. They hate it more than climate change or capitalism.

@HopfJames They need an ABWR..

A feasibility study on nuclear power development in Oklahoma says that the main barrier will be high costs, relative to their current mix of natural gas and wind power. Article link in reply. They suggest that rate payers will not accept significantly higher power costs to pay for new nuclear. Other financing options are govt. low interest loans and other incentrives, or private funding from large energy users such as data centers. The sad truth is that, if you don't have a problem with using a lot of gas generation (i.e., if you don't have a strict grid decarbonization requirement), new nuclear is going to have trouble competing with mixures of renewables and (significant) gas. Any private companies (e.g., data centers) that will finance new nuclear will be ones that have "NetZero" commitments. Fortunately, many/most high-profile tech companies do.

@xiaowang1984 Like how does this even work? Generators get a kickback on the distribution?

That's because the ratepayers have already paid the community solar farms and rooftop solar. You can't get your money back if you're the offtaker smdh!

“Corporate farming methods” are why you don’t have to do backbreaking work as a farmer anymore and why starvation is the exception rather than the rule around the world today

I’m sure it’s perfectly safe but I’m just gonna say it - the aalo atomics microreactor was indeed built in 40 days.. and it looks like it was built in 40 days too. Come on now lol. It’s totally a mock up right? The NRC isn’t going to actually let those guys sustain a chain reaction with that ???

@KevinPranis @xiaowang1984 My solar array costs 20k - hardly free lol.

@xiaowang1984 Why pay anything when you can get your light and heat directly from the sun for free?

I mean why would anyone ever pay 58c a kwh to DC fast charge when you can do it at home for 15c. Amirite

Ok - look. I like solar power just as much as the next guy. But solar just doesn’t make sense in an industrial economy. Solar on my rooftop can power the needs of my home. But the high energy applications in my house are only used for maybe an hour every day. Boiling some water, baking a cake, etc. But the industrial economy runs 24/7. This is why California and Germany are paying out their ass for power - even with all the renewables they have installed. You have to massively overbuild and even then you have the intermittency problem. All the wind and solar is worth exactly zero in the middle of a dunkelflaute. Idk why this is zero sum game to you. I am pro-nuclear all day long and 90% of the power needs of my home come from my rooftop solar array and batteries.

For anyone who still hasn't grasped why nuclear power plants are the stupidest idea imaginable: New nuclear power plants cost up to 49 cents per kilowatt-hour in Europe. Solar power costs between 3 and 6 cents. Thats 16 times more expensive electricity For those now dreaming of small power plants (SMR): SMRs produce five to 30 times more nuclear waste than large reactors, and nuclear waste is a massive cost driver. Professor Dr. Lesch calls the idea of ​​using old nuclear waste as fuel "a wonderful fairy tale that has yet to come true anywhere in the world." For all now claiming storage is no cost driver take a look what Germany had to pay and all other countries with nuclear energy generation must pay for decommissioning and storing nuclear facilities and waste in the future:

@xiaowang1984 As in there was so little inertia that once frequency was lost there was nothing left for it? The Spanish seems to have concluded that considering they are now running the gas turbines at a higher minimum.

@ProvenReserves Entirely plausible they effed up so bad that more inertia wouldn't have made a difference tho. I see that point being true enough

When energy transition leaders have to defend a certain narrative in a binary sense you have to wonder about their objectivity

They are just never going to accept that a spinning turbine can give you the critical seconds you need to shed load before a full on grid collapse. Because literally every one of them have all seemed to repeat “this wasn’t a frequency problem”. Which is what this report gave them cover to do?

@ProvenReserves Entso-e wasn't that bad... More like dancing around the facts that they clearly know happened but careful not to say it too bluntly. It is the other actors that do the spin imo