Oregon Electric Grid

[RicInOR]

I get this is a bit on the political side.

The PowersThatBe want Oregon to shutter all power sources that use hydrocarbons -- coal / gas.

What might that due to the availability of electricity at your place?

I am seriously looking at Solar with Battery backup.

“Green Energy über alles,” Say Oregon’s Lunatic Democrats

redstate.com

Read More

 

[WalkingTall]

I get this is a bit on the political side.

The PowersThatBe want Oregon to shutter all power sources that use hydrocarbons -- coal / gas.

What might that due to the availability of electricity at your place?

I am seriously looking at Solar with Battery backup.

“Green Energy über alles,” Say Oregon’s Lunatic Democrats

redstate.com

Getting self reliant on energy needs is a no brainer for me as a long run goal. I think working to solar power your property is a great idea.

 

[P7M13]

Chuck Wiese's letter is great, and his math looks good too.
It'd be interesting to see what contributions have been made to political campaigns by green energy PACs or corporations like Tesla Solar.
The pendulum is swinging hard. Seems the Kali Termite problem is getting worse.

 

[aflineman]

Hydro will be regulated so heavily that it will be no longer economically viable soon. With that and gas going by the wayside, it will be interesting when the sun does not shine and the wind stops blowing.

 

[Longwalkhome]

When everything is good then we have plenty of power, so obviously in survival we plan for the power not being there.

Neighbor is an older gent that realizes going into a nursing home is certain death. Covid convinced him to stay home in old age so he decided on his own natural gas powered generator. He isn't planning long term but just for when the power is off.

 

[robertvarner]

The biggest problem with both solar and wind is as they get more and more efficient, you are tempted to upgrade and to dispose of either the old panel or wind generator is expensive. No one is recycling them because the back-end profit is not there yet

 

[RicInOR]

Related: "Indian Point Energy Center (I.P.E.C.) was a three-unit nuclear power plant station located in Buchanan, New York, just south of Peekskill. It sits on the east bank of the Hudson River, about 36 miles (58 km) north of Midtown Manhattan. The facility has permanently ceased power operations as of April 30, 2021."

California, facing power crisis, frets over electric car charging routines

Power grid operators encouraged Californians to charge their electric vehicles before energy conservation blocks set in during the state's latest heat wave.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Bob D]

I get this is a bit on the political side.

The PowersThatBe want Oregon to shutter all power sources that use hydrocarbons -- coal / gas.

What might that due to the availability of electricity at your place?

I am seriously looking at Solar with Battery backup.

“Green Energy über alles,” Say Oregon’s Lunatic Democrats

redstate.com

I just had panels installed a few weeks ago, primarily as a big step toward energy independence. Batteries aren't quite at the price point I had wanted them to be; but as our grid gets more and more taxed and solutions aren't forthcoming, it seems like I should maybe bump up my priority.

 

[OldBroad44]

Solar energy is not the obvious choice in a land where there is almost no sun half the year.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Solar roof tiles with 1 or 2 Tesla Powerwalls should do the trick.

 

[Bob D]

I really don't understand why we aren't powering our entire grid with nuclear. We are so scared of it here; but it's such a cheaper, more effective, and eco-friendly way to do this than what we currently use. I get that it would be great to snap our fingers and have perfectly green energy coming from offshore wind, solar, and wave-power generators, but we don't live in that world yet. a Nuclear Generator in each region would be so much more effective, and it's a uniquely American fear mindset that keeps us from doing it. I wouldn't doubt that that fear was stoked heavily by our oil and coal industries. It would be such a better transition than just trying to piecemeal together a bunch of disparate solar and wind emerging technologies.

 

[WalkingTall]

I really don't understand why we aren't powering our entire grid with nuclear. We are so scared of it here; but it's such a cheaper, more effective, and eco-friendly way to do this than what we currently use. I get that it would be great to snap our fingers and have perfectly green energy coming from offshore wind, solar, and wave-power generators, but we don't live in that world yet. a Nuclear Generator in each region would be so much more effective, and it's a uniquely American fear mindset that keeps us from doing it. I wouldn't doubt that that fear was stoked heavily by our oil and coal industries. It would be such a better transition than just trying to piecemeal together a bunch of disparate solar and wind emerging technologies.

Yes! I'm with you 100% on this. Nuclear is the way to go. Better tech, better safety, better regulation, and you got cheap long lasting energy.

 

[dangerranger60]

Battery technology has not changed much since the 1900's. They still collect energy when its available, and store it for when the need arises.
The problem with batterys is whether you use them or not they have a decay rate. The day they are made they start to decay.
When you look at battery backups, ask about their service life. and the projected cost of replacement. Make sure they include the cost of disposal.
When I looked at storage I found it was much cheaper to install a generator. My yearly Maintance has been oil,and filters. DR

 

[Provincial]

We have been through this type of thing many times. Unleaded gasoline, compact florescent light bulbs, low-flow toilets, "clean" diesel engines, etc.. Every time the Government mandates something without having a mature alternative, it is wasteful, destructive, and economically devastating to ordinary Americans.
The rich don't feel it, and the politicians get rich from the legal bribes called "campaign contributions."

The real devastation will come when the politicians order the power companies to channel the limited remaining power to their dependent voter base. They will not feel the pain, so they will think the politicians are doing just fine. The productive people will sit in the cold (or hot) and dark, while the rich enjoy their alternative power sources and automatic generator systems.

I agree about the nuclear power option. Don't get me started on how that was mismanaged in the past by bad government policy and oversight!

 

[Bob D]

I have a good dual-fuel generator, but I don't want to be relying on gas or LP availability if I don't have to. Even if the solar/Battery solution is only good for part of my family electric use for a couple decades, that's a lot longer than my gennie would last without a lot of fuel refills.

 

[tccustom]

Its not about the energy, It's about the control....let them eat cake....

 

[P7M13]

Its not about the energy, It's about he control....let them eat cake....

It's not about safety or common sense, it's about conrol. Let them eat lead....

 

[OldBroad44]

I really don't understand why we aren't powering our entire grid with nuclear. We are so scared of it here; but it's such a cheaper, more effective, and eco-friendly way to do this than what we currently use. I get that it would be great to snap our fingers and have perfectly green energy coming from offshore wind, solar, and wave-power generators, but we don't live in that world yet. a Nuclear Generator in each region would be so much more effective, and it's a uniquely American fear mindset that keeps us from doing it. I wouldn't doubt that that fear was stoked heavily by our oil and coal industries. It would be such a better transition than just trying to piecemeal together a bunch of disparate solar and wind emerging technologies.

I think the reasons why America is unenthusiastic about nuclear power are that we've seen that disasters happen in nuclear plants. And when mistakes happen, the results can be horrific compared with mistakes in a standard power plant. The default apparently is sometimes/often/always (?) that if the electricity fails a meltdown happens. We need plants where the default is if the electricity or anything else fails, the plant shuts down. What to do with spent radioactive fuel is not adequately solved. Its apparently not very economical, either. Especially at small scale. In addition, its disconcerting to locate nuclear power plants in earthquake zones. Oregon, Washington, Alaska, California, Japan, the ring of fire, the Mediterranean countries, and certain other regions are all in earthquake zones. In addition more nuclear power leads to more nuclear weapon proliferation.

I think both solar and wind have downsides, are limited in where they are available, and unlikely to be able to produce more than a quarter of the worlds needs. I think shale oil and natural gas will give the US all the energy we want for the next generation. North America became energy independent for the first time in the year before covid. And American shale oil is now only slightly more expensive to produce than Saudi Arabian, the cheapest. And that's not even including transportation. Or the massive military costs, publically financed, associated with needing oil from the Middle East. If advances in technology continue at the fast current rate, American shake oil will likely be the cheapest to produce within the decade. American shale oil is also a sweet instead of heavy slushy oil. And the heaviest production is in the upper Midwest, where the natural gas that is a byproduct is now cheaper than anywhere in the world, and is being used to make very cheap electricity and as feedstocks to produce fertilizers, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. American Midwest has already converted many refineries to refine American shale oil. And American pharmaceutical companies have already greatly expanded the repertoire of chemicals that can be manufactured by using our light sweet crude. The outrageously cheap electricity mean the Upper Midwest is perfectly positioned to have manufacturing operations of certain kinds come home to America. (I've lifted this overview on energy from the YouTube videos of geopolitical expert Peter Zeihan , which are both entertaining and profound.)

There is enough shake oil in US to last a generation. Maybe two. I think nuclear power will be the long term solution. But we need lots more research and development. And it is so long term and subject to regulation that the research probably really needs to be funded by the government. It doesn't fit our American capitalistic patterns. We may actually need a pattern of a required 2 or 3 years of military/public service for all before it happens. Part of why the Manhattan Project worked was the US government had access to all the top brains in the country. One of my major science mentors, for example, was a young assistant prof in biology at U of Chicago at the beginning of WWII--a little older than ordinary draft age. The head of the biology branch of the Manhatten Project came to him and said, "Red, I'd like you to come work for me. The work is really interesting. I can't tell you anything about it. Or where you'll be. However, if you don't volunteer to come work for me, I'll have you drafted as a buck private and you will be assigned to work for me anyway." As Red told me and his other grad students a few decades later, "It was an offer I couldn't refuse." And the work was interesting. Figuring out the biological effects of radiation on living creatures. Almost nothing was known about it back then.

I heard a talk recently on nuclear power based on thorium. It supposedly not only doesn't produce nuclear waste, it can use current nuclear waste products as fuel. Not my field, but sure sounded great.

 

[Bob D]

There have been a few very high profile disasters, but it's still important to recognize the overall safety of the technology. 10% of the world's electricity (and 20% of US electricity) is currently produced by nuclear reaction. AS far as low-carbon energy is concerned, Nuclear is behind only hydroelectric, and has far less impact on the ecosystem on average; even when you factor in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

It's a hell of a lot safer than it was; and we tend to ignore the measurable impact that fossil fuel consumption has on our ecosystem when we compare the relative safety of each.

I agree that it's probably the main source moving into the future, but I think the technology is already there to start doing it now.

 

[Certaindeaf]

We have been through this type of thing many times. Unleaded gasoline, compact florescent light bulbs, low-flow toilets, "clean" diesel engines, etc.. Every time the Government mandates something without having a mature alternative, it is wasteful, destructive, and economically devastating to ordinary Americans.
The rich don't feel it, and the politicians get rich from the legal bribes called "campaign contributions."

The real devastation will come when the politicians order the power companies to channel the limited remaining power to their dependent voter base. They will not feel the pain, so they will think the politicians are doing just fine. The productive people will sit in the cold (or hot) and dark, while the rich enjoy their alternative power sources and automatic generator systems.

I agree about the nuclear power option. Don't get me started on how that was mismanaged in the past by bad government policy and oversight!

Bill Nye the science cuck has spent a bungton on his own personal green system and it'll pay for itself in about the year 3000.