Comments by "" (@baronvonlimbourgh1716) on "Saudi Arabia Cuts Output, Challenges Alliance With US." video.

Nuclear will only make the usa less economicly competitive for many decades. Especially it it will make it the backbone of it's energy system. Strategicly nuclear really is unattractive.
7
@gingernutpreacher cost per kwh is also extremely high. For new reactors they are predicted to be at 25 cents per kwh. And how great are the chances predictions are reached when you let the market monopolise even further? Trading one evil for another. Renewables are a fraction of that and will keep falling for the forseeable future, with way less overhead and much more flexibility that is easilly decentralised. Not to mention the logistical and longterm problems nuclear creates. It should have gone nuclear 30 or 40 years ago when it made sense. Now it is just energy companies desperatly pushing it like crazy because they otherwise no longer have a reason for existing a decade from now.
4
In the usa that is just not going to happen anytime soon. It will first need more cities to go bankrupt before things can change. Electrification is the best bet there.
2
@baneofbanes that has always been a great economic engine, when urban development is geared towards it's use at least. It helps keeping local governments stay fiscaly solvent.
2
@akacicaa things are moving very quickly now, a decade from now the situation will be completely different.
2
@jtgd most conflicts are of usa fabrication. After many decades of intervention and supporting one corrupt group and government after another it has created a totally manufactured power structure. As soon as washingtons influence starts fade away this manufactured structure needs to find a natural balance again. It is unavoidable because the situation thet was created never was sustainable
1
@gnomad3143 sure you would create jobs for 7 years and create an international economic disadvantage for 70... Or you create jobs for 7 years building energy systems that actually create cheap energy and will keep the country competitive with the rest of the world. New energy systems need to be build either way.
1
@MrTaxiRob being a high energy cost economy going forward is a serious strategic vulnrability...
1
@gnomad3143 energy companies are the only ones still pushing for nuclear. They are the only ones who bennefit from keeping the grid a one way delivery system where the bulk of the energy is created by a few massive companies that can run nuclear plants where the entire country needs to buy it's energy. They don't want retail chains or companies like amazon entering the market as big energy providers and innovate in the market. In an energy grid built on nuclear it is very hard to integrate renewables because the inherent inflexibility in nuclear plants. They can not scale up or down. They need sources that only come online when demand is high and shut off when demand is low. If nuclear dominates and is prioritised it only allows for renewables to add to the system when demand exeeds nuke xapability. Basicly making them not economicly viable in one go. Locking them in for the future and ensuring they are protected by regulation and shielded from actual competition.
1
@MrTaxiRob not sure what you are rsponding to or the point you are trying to make. Cost over lifetime devided by energy produced over lifetime nuclear and renewables aren't even in the same ballpark for cost per kwh no matter how you slice it.. Why any country would lock itself into the most expensive option voluntarilly is beyond me. It's economic suicide.
1
@gremlinsaregold8890 plus these sources are easilly scaled, have low overhead costs, continue to advance in efficienty with technological development and favor a decentralised deployment that actually bennefits from market forces and price incentives in order to lower costs over time. And don't produce freakin nuclear waste which is a huge longterm liability. Nuclear is a 20th century technology. It has been surpased by 21st century technology now and should become something found in history books and museums. Any country relying on obsolete technology always puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The whole discussion about it is just a waste of time.
1
@MrTaxiRob dude. Nukes are expensive, get over it. They just don't make sense in any way. The need constant maintenance, constant management by a lot of very expensive highly educated people, the security they require and all the other headaches they cause. Not to mention the pushback from the public. And then the shit that will hit the fan if one goes wrong, and statisticly one will eventually when there are enough of them to be the backbone of the grid. They are an economic nightmare. Who on earth would want to commit to any of that for half a century when easier and cheaper options are available with none of the issues or longterm commitment and all of the flexibility and scalebillity. You do realise that half the usa is a freakin dessert and coastal area right? And has these massive plains that are windy as hell. Running on nukes is just backwards and a waste of billions of public money every year. It is just another insane proposition by panicking corporations pooring lots of cash into lobying and public relations trying to convince the regressive minded and emotionally driven that we can not live without them.
1
@MrTaxiRob just look up any lobby group and who funds them. The few obvious ones are GE, the utilities and mining companies ofcourse. The solar industry really doesn't need my help. They barely keep up with demand as it is already. I'd take a job though if you know anyone who's offering, should be one of the easiest jobs out there.
1
@LJPugh187 we'll see by the time the time 2030 comes around and the transition is mostly done what the situation is like. Who are locked into expensive energy and who bennefit of cheap and flexible energy into the future. 👍
1
@etaaramin9361 the need for grid based storage isn't as big as people imagine either. It only is if you incist on imagining the grid as it is now, a one way delivery system of energy, and ignore the innovation and market forces that are happening every single day. The bulk of domestic energy production and storage will be done localy. There is an increasing economic incentive to create and store your own energy on your own property. That's energy that does not need to come from the grid. Big retailers and warehouses and basicly every business owning building with big flat roofs are also starting to deploy pv on a massive scale. Simply because it is free energy and and they will simply store what they need for the night. And for most it is an additional income stream where they sell their access to people who can not create enough on their own or who live in appartments and stuff. With all the roofs being filled with privately owned pv and masive desserts just waiting to be filled with even more solar energy will be dirt cheap during the day so everyone can top of their storage for pennies and use it at night when prices are high. That takes away a huge demand from the network that is filled by simple peer to peer systems. And on continents like europe or north america there is always wind blowing somewhere it is just how weather systems work. So there always will be a baseload of windpower. This also severely decreases the amount of on network storage that is needed. Add to that hydro and nuclear capacity that already exists and the need to store energy on the network really isn't that big. It is only if you ignore everything that is happening and want to keep the grid the way it is, pumping out electricity from central places and consumers to completely rely on drwaing from the network 24/7 it becomes an impossible task that would be hugely expensive, just like nuclear. Energy no longer is only available from the grid. And energy from the grid with all it's infrastructure and overhead can never be cheaper then local production. No matter the source, not even unlimited free fusion could beat local production because the cost of transportation would exceed the cost of local production.
1
@etaaramin9361 Learn To Read . . ,
1
@etaaramin9361 how is that an insult? You obviously did not read what was said....
1
@etaaramin9361 lol.. let me know when you managed to read it, ok. 👍
1
@etaaramin9361 did you read it already?
1
@redvenge709 i think your information is at least a couple of decades out of date man. At least have the decency to be somewhat up to date with the current state of technology and the industry in general before you call someone ignorant. Just because you begin with a single statistic that is actually true doesn't grant you the credibility to make up every single statistic that follows in the entire post dude. Some statistics are from the 80s or 90s lol. Not sure what you are trying to achieve with such a post, but enjoy the rest of your evening anyway. 👍
1
@eitkoml when was the last time you actually read a research paper? I always wonder how people who clearly are interested in a subject can be so uninformed about what is going on in that area. From people who only see the odd clickbait headline or some random report on tv this sort of random statements are kind of expected. But from people wanting to argue with others or feel confident enough to make bold statement i feel we should be able to expect a little more then simply repeating randomness. Please have some respect for yourself as well as others 👍
1
@redvenge709 things don't magicly come true if you repeat them lol. facepalm
1
@eitkoml you do know that weather is local right? When entire weeks are wind free we have bigger problems then a lack of energy..
1
@eitkoml but then you have the coastlines that will have wind if inland is without. And if there is no wind, no clouds form. So lovely sunny weather. Clouds form when high presure and low presure mix, that mixing is what we call wind.... Amazing, right? Almost like solar and wind energy being a perfect match because of it.
1
@redvenge709 why should i admit anything? Is this an interogation or something? For some reason you don't seem to be the kind of guy that doesn't wants to know anything or god forbid, actually learn something... Responding with "i won" when someone tells you the things you think to know are decades out of date really isn't normal lol. Like i said, if you are interested in this stuff you obviously like to learn things about it. The info is out there for you to get up to speed. I'll be happy to point you in the right direction, maybe we can even have an actual discussion about. That would be fun! If you aren't that interested afteral, "refuting" anything would be kind of a waste of time wouldn't it? My time is rather valuable and i generally don't waste it on people not interested in learning stuff and gaining new perspectives. Or provide me and others with new insights. If your time isn't worth anything and you rather waste it by turning random things into a competition of some sort, fine go ahead lol. You won a participation medal woohoo 👍.. I hope being rewarded for knowing very little was everything you hoped it would be! You rock dude, HIGH FIVE!!! I appriciate you too my friend! Let me know if you want to have a real discussion about recent stuff or if you are happy with your medal and rather leave it at that!
1
@eitkoml you do know that most windmills are ofshore right. They are ablolutly enormous and don't bother anyone out there. And pv works anywhere, they even do when the sky is full of clouds 👍, amazing technolgy, i know! Especially if you put a buch of them out in the massive freakin dessert where nobody can live anyway. Why? The normal stuff. Because i like my power to be cheap and plentiful, for people to spend their money on things that actually make them happy instead of overpaying for energy. It would also be nice for the energy market to be decentralised so energy companies no longer have as much power as they enjoy at the moment and tax money no longer is wasted on infrastructure that we don't need so it can be spent on actual useful things. Less government waste seems to be a rather good thing. And leaving as little life threatning waste behind for our kids to deal with would also be a major plus obviously. And keeping the chance of creating nuclear wastelands as little as possible would also be nice, especially if there are better alternatives are available. And the ability to deploy it vastly quicker is always a nice bonus, especially we are kind of in a hurry at the moment.
1
@gremlinsaregold8890 that capacity can be build and it does not need decades. The uk for example already runs on 60% wind energy on good days. That is massive and achieved in 1 maybe 2 decades. 2 decades where the tech was still developing, expensive and way less efficient, some entire early windmill parks build 20 years ago can now be replaced by a single one offshore. Same goes for pv. Most pv installed more then a couple of years ago was expensive because production capacity was still low, technology less efficient etc. The traditional chicken and egg story. Someone needs to buy this stuff when it is not viable to create the logistics and industry to keep developing the technology and build the capacity so bennefits of scale can be introduced. Things went really slowly the last 20 years because this is the nesesary process we where working trough. Now we are hitting the point where all that is starting to pay off. Prices have come down to the point where both pv and wind are the lowest available. Production capacity has been growing exponentially because production is now economicly viable because of the scale and demand. The r&d field is now privatly funded because there now actually is a profit incentive where there wasn't one before. The industry is now mature, self sufficient, profitable and growing exponentially globally. What was done in the last 20 years will now be repeated in the next 4 or 5. And will double again in the next 4 or 5 after that. It's the traditional technological s-curve. It works the same way for every technological disruption. It has for houndreds of years and this one is following the exact same trajection. Things have been accelerating for 20 years and it will keep accelerating going forward. And there really is nothing that can be done to stop it at this point, no reason we'd want to but just sayin.
1
@eitkoml dude come on. There are massive turbine parks built offshore every day. It is the only place where these absolutely massive machines can be built cause they are the size of skyscrapers. The newest GE one is nearly a thousand feet tall. Same goes for you. If you are not interested enough to at least know what is happening in the industry now instead of 20 years ago, why are you here? Just want to argue and waste time to "win" an argument and get a participation medal as well? Fine have one. Wooho, enjoy! I am happy to discuss with you about the current situation. But my time is to valuable to argue about things that where solved years ago or arguments that hold no water whatsoever. If talking about such nonsense is what you are looking for i sugest you visit some conspiracy channels. I am sure they will gladly entertain you and maybe can give you some more outdated facts and manufactured outrage to absorb. Have a nice weekend.
1
@redvenge709 dude, you are an idiot. If you buy pv panels they have a 20 year 80% guarantee. That would mean everybody putting up pv panels would get replacement panels for free every 3 or something years basicly forever. And as panels are now starting to age and reaching 30 years old it turns out they last longer then originally expected. After 30 year panels still delivering around 85 to 90% of their original output. That means they might hit 80% after 40 years instead of the expected 20 years. And even then they aren't even at the end of their life, 80% capacity is still perfectly usable and no direct reason for replacement. A realistic lifespan where they stay useful seems to be around 50 years now. But we will have to wait another 20 years to see, maybe they will last even longer
1
@eitkoml actually, it is cheaper to do offshore. The roi is much higher. Larger is better and cheaper with turbines. A single offshore 15mw unit replaces about 50 1mw onshore units to deliver the same energy. But is not 50 times more expensive to install. Especially in a common park where 50 or 100 are installed together. Onshore turbines usually run a capacity factor of 20 to 25. So they work 20/25% of the time at their rated power delivery. With offshore wind this exceeds 60%. So they work 3 times as much and they are much bigger using less resources to build and install them because building fewer bigger things generally is cheaper then building many small things. Pretty much everything works like that nowdays. Economies of scale. And maintenance costs and operational overhead are just a fraction with 50 offshore turbines then it would be with over 2000 onshore turbines, if you could even find space for that many where they do not cause disruption. Seas we have unlimited of. Ofshore turbines is why the cost of wind energy has come down so much over recent years making it the cheapets energy by a long shot.
1
@redvenge709 yes it is a performance guarantee given by the manufacturer. Production defects cary the standard legal minimum of 2 years on consumer products. Like i said 30 year old panels are still producing 90 of their rated capacity. Which is an average degradation of 0.3% per year.. and they rarely go bad anyway. When they work they work and they will keep working. They do not have moving parts... do i need to keep repeating myself? What has energy use increase to do with anything? ofcourse it grows, it will growing until the economy stops growing. Economic growth and energy consumption are linked to eachother, they always have been. That is why cheap energy is so important, it is one of the main factors in economic competitiveness and thus the ability to keep growing. Panels become more efficient over time, new and replacement panels are more efficient then the ones they replace over time. And economkc vrowth that causes higher energy use also demands more infrastructure and real estate. Which will create more production capacity. But beyond that, energy demand has been growing since forever.... how did we solve that? BY BUILDING MORE ENERGY PRODUCING INFRASTRUCTURE. It isn't rocket science...
1
@Ramschat cheap nuclear is an oximoron lol.
1
@eitkoml statistics obviously aren't your friend are they?
1
Usa hegamony is slowly slipping. It is losing it's control over world affairs. If you play with fire long enough eventually you will burn down the house..
1
Things are picking up quickly now, we'll get there soon enough.
1
That isn't a solution either. It would make the usa completely uncompetitive economicly for many decades to come.
1
Things are changing quickly now, it's going exponential.
1
Things are changing quickly, things have been going exponential. It will all look very different a decade from now.
1