Hey, Let’s Ban New Fossil Fuel Projects

Sam Rasoul

This is what you get when the General Assembly usurps the State Corporation Commission and starts dictating energy policy. HB1635 by Del. Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke, would impose a moratorium on “any new electric generating facility that generates fossil fuel energy through the combustion of any fossil fuel resources,” along with any fossil-fuel pipeline or export facility. The bill has been approved by the Committee on Commerce and Labor and is being considered by the full House.

Rasoul seems to be under the impression that it is possible for Virginia to transition to a 100% clean energy economy — in other words, one dominated by renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and (a trivial contributor in Virginia) hydro. I don’t know what he thinks about nuclear, but if he agrees with the Sierra Club, he’s against that, too. The problem, as every reader of Bacon’s Rebellion knows, is that wind and solar are not dispatchable — that is, electric utilities cannot turn them on and off to meet fluctuations in demand.

As a practical matter, there only two ways to offset intermittent solar and wind production in Virginia: (1) by building natural gas-fired peaker plants, or (2) importing energy from outside the state. If you don’t build the peaker plants, demand will periodically exceed supply, leading to widespread blackouts and brownouts. If you import electricity from outside the state, it will be a mix of conventional and renewable, hence won’t be green, thus defeating the purpose of the legislation. Plus, it would require construction of a lot more high-power transmission lines, which, last time I checked, nobody likes.

In theory, it might be possible to build massive racks of batteries to store enough energy to meet electricity demand for relatively short periods of time. But even assuming the lithium-ion technology advances to the point where batteries are  economically practical for load shifting, there isn’t enough lithium in the world to build enough batteries to carry Virginia through a prolonged extreme weather event like the Polar Vortex.

Environmentalists also argue that miraculous things can be accomplished through energy conservation. Yes, conservation can reduce the demand for electricity. But I have seen no evidence to suggest that conservation can offset both economic growth and the planned phase-out of old coal, biomass and natural gas plants, not to mention the phase-out of nuclear plants, as many advocate.

So, if Rasoul’s secret aim is to destroy the reliability of Virginia’s electric grid and plunge the economy into periodic chaos, then this bill is a good idea. Otherwise, it is a very bad idea. One might be able to make an intellectually respectable case for banning new fossil-fuel facilities if other appropriate measures — conservation, decentralized smart grids, etc. — were put into place. But banning fossil fuels without accompanying measures is a prescription for disaster.

It is remarkable to me that Rasoul’s bill received nine “yes” votes in committee compared to only seven “no” votes. (Six members of the committee did not vote.) The issue, driven by fear of global warming, is polarized along party lines — eight of the nine “yes” votes came from Democrats. (Del. Tim Hugo, R-Centreville, voted in favor in order to get the bill onto the floor, where, presumably, it will be defeated.) Six of seven “no” votes were Republicans. With the recent 4th District Court ruling on redistricting, it seems inevitable that Democrats will take control of the General Assembly in the next election. HB1635 may not make it through the legislature this year, but Rasoul will be back, and he’ll likely have a more ideologically compatible legislature behind him. 

There are currently no comments highlighted.

32 responses to “Hey, Let’s Ban New Fossil Fuel Projects

  1. Renewable energy is a fool’s errand. Already obsolete. Will never work to solve global warming, never ever, it’s dead and done. Beyond gas, the only real solution to defeat climate change is Nuclear. People need to get their head on straight about this reality, and start living in the real world for a change. Go Nuke!!!

    • The bill begs for an amendment that would limit its application to the Roanoke Valley. A couple years later and the point would be made.

    • I am not as pessimistic about renewable energy. Ultimately, the answer is solar. We just need to develop the storage capability, battery or otherwise. That is basic research that may not have an immediate payoff. So, in the interim, I agree with your support for nuclear. I consider myself an environmentalist and I have long wondered why environmentalists are so opposed to nuclear plants. They have none of the problems of fossil fuel plants–they don’t contribute to climate change and they don’t pose the health problems that fossil fuels do. Of course, if something goes wrong, it can be catastrophic, i.e. Chernobyl and Japan. And, there is that nagging problem of what to do with the spent nuclear rods, the problems of what to do with coal ash would pale in comparison with the debate over fuel rods. (So, maybe I have answered my own question.)

    • “So, if Rasoul’s secret aim is to destroy the reliability of Virginia’s electric grid and plunge the economy into periodic chaos, then this bill is a good idea.”

      As the Green Radical on this blog, I have tried very hard to rely on facts compiled by people respected in their fields and not antithetical to business. I do not want to be accused of being Chicken Little, hopelessly claiming disaster and attempting to scare people. That said, … “As a practical matter” … there are always more ways to skin the cat than peaker plants and importing electricity from PJM.

      First of all, for now PJM has said they have plenty of capacity. Here is an excerpt from PJM 2017 Market report … “The net revenue results show that there are between 108 and 118 units with between 22,929 MW and 30,785 MW of capacity in PJM at risk of retirement, in addition to the units that are currently planning to retire. Coal and nuclear units account for most of the MW at risk.
      • In 2017, a new CoalPlant would not have received sufficient net revenue to cover levelized total costs in any zone.
      • In 2017, a new nuclear plant would not have received sufficient net revenue to cover levelized total costs in any zone
      • In 2017, a new CT would not have received sufficient net revenue to cover levelized total costs in any zone.

      So buying from PJM looks OK while other resources are developed. Besides we are already doing just that. In 2016 we bought 25% of our electricity from out of state. AND remember, NREL calculated rooftop solar could meet 25% of VA demand and the biggest available potential for VA, as seen by BVG Asso.. is “2 GW of offshore wind … added to the grid, it would generate about 9 TWh and so reduce the reliance on out-of-state electricity by about 30%.

      Those 200 GW are only one of the many leases available on VA section of the Bight. Maybe allowing 3rd party developers would do the trick?

      “Yes, conservation can reduce the demand for electricity. But I have seen no evidence to suggest that conservation can offset both economic growth and the planned phase-out of old coal, biomass and natural gas plants, not to mention the phase-out of nuclear plants, as many advocate.”

      First economic growth does not mean the same as it did years ago … for instance… California’s low carbon diet is working. The state has achieved a 13% reduction in emissions from their peak in 2004, while growing its economy by 26%. Reduction in energy use does not hamper economic growth, it may actually enhance growth.

      Secondly, efficiency isn’t just a bit of insulation. A building in Denver did a RMI retrofit and reduced energy use by 70%. “To approach any 100-percent-renewable energy scenario, improved energy efficiency is needed in both energy-supply sectors and energy-consumption sectors. More than 60 percent of energy produced in the United States in 2016 across all sectors was wasted,” according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

      NERC’s new long-term review reported that the growth of electricity demand in North America is at the lowest level ever.

      AEE … Energy productivity and GDP growth both accelerated —demonstrating that the U.S. economy can grow even as total energy consumption declines.
      • Corporations are increasingly demanding cleaner energy and capturing gains from energy efficiency, most particularly IT energy gobblers who see free operating funds in lower energy bills
      • Consumers devoted a smaller share of spending toward electricity than at any time ever recorded.

      Tom has given us a saving plan … “We would begin by saving 1% per year of Dominion’s annual energy sales and then get a little better over time. This is about the average savings (0.9%) of the 51 utilities surveyed in the ACEEE report. We could accomplish this just by being average. … By 2032, when the first Surrey unit is due to retire, we would have displaced the need for 1750 MW of generation (assuming 100% capacity factor). This is more than the 1678 MW Surrey facility. By 2040, when the second North Anna unit retires, we would have displaced a total of 3300 MW of generating capacity, which is greater than all four nuclear units operating at 91% capacity.”

      “One might be able to make an intellectually respectable case for banning new fossil-fuel facilities if other appropriate measures — conservation, decentralized smart grids, etc. — were put into place. But banning fossil fuels without accompanying measures is a prescription for disaster.”

      Dominion is planning to add new peakers from the mid 2020s to the early 2030s, about the time batteries are definitely cost-competitive to clearly cheaper than gas-fired peakers, with a fixed energy cost if coupled with renewable charging. The chart doesn’t post .. but within 4 years storage begins to compete head to head and within 10 years storage always wins.
      That way before those peakers would have paid for themselves.
      …. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/battery-storage-is-threatening-natural-gas-peaker-plants#gs.x7jlSq0

      NY has just signed onto 100% renewable energy by 2040 … Really! Isn’t it worth a try?

      • Jane,
        I am going to rely on you and Tom to carry the Green Radical banner!

      • I am having computer issues and my edit timed out … Here is the info on the size of those leases … Virginia’s offshore wind has the potential to generate 3+ times Dominion’s 2017 net energy load (11).
        The offshore leases Dominion won in 2013 can provide the electricity equivalent of 2.5 nuclear plants,
        So please ignore the various 2 MW?GW???? sited above

  2. Virginia probably nuke+ electricity imports equals about 70% of our power, so we are not a carbon intensive state. Of course if we count the coal power (Roanoke?) imports from WV, we are not so great. Many of the RGGI northeast states are not really building any power plants, depending mostly on imports from Canada and PJM grid. So that approach works for now, but implies we are opting out of economic activity that blue Virginia feels is unacceptable. Good luck with that selective approach approving only projects politically acceptable to the Left.

    • TBill,

      If Virginia joins RGGI, the carbon contribution from Virginia associated generation will add 42% to the total carbon output of the all nine RGGI states.

      We have again been misled by effective PR campaigns about Virginia having a minor amount of carbon emissions.

      I don’t see that having a lower-cost, more reliable energy system appeals only to the Left. Our Chambers of Commerce and policy-makers have also been influenced by those PR campaigns.

      Our utilities have opposed moving to a more modern system only because they will make less money unless we change the rules to give them new profit opportunities. We need a comprehensive upgrade, not just one that favors the utilities or offsets that with policies that favor the consumers. Done right, we can design a scheme that is good for everybody.

      • Tom –
        Just because the other RGGI states have near zero carbon emissions does not mean Virgina is high carbon because it is non-zero. Try comparing to WV or PA who are the net exporters of power to RGGI states, aside from Canada. And I need to check your numbers anyways.

        • TBill,

          My point was not that Virginia is a “high carbon” emitting state. It is a moderate emitter. You are right WV, PA and others have higher carbon emissions. My point was that Virginia emits more carbon from plants in its jurisdiction (including Mt. Storm) than we have been led to believe. The recent addition of large gas-fired plants such as Brunswick and Greensville have added to those carbon emissions (on an absolute basis, not an intensity basis).

          RGGI states do still have coal, gas, and oil-fired units in operation. But they also have the benefit of buying loads of cheap hydro from Canada. They are filling a 5+ year gap with purchased power rather than committing to 40-year fossil-fired facilities that subvert their lower cost, lower energy use, clean energy goals.

          NY has chosen to provide hundreds of millions in subsidies to keep some non-economic nuclear units open a few years longer until their energy efficiency and renewable energy programs can fill in the gap.

          The carbon reduction in the RGGI states has largely been due to spending the proceeds from the carbon auctions on things like energy efficiency and distributed solar programs. This has reduced demand, increased zero-carbon generation, and lowered energy prices by $2.3 billion over the past nine years.

          We do not plan to use the auction proceeds in the same way in Virginia. Auction dollars will go either back to the utilities or to other programs such as coastal protection in SE VA, and other projects.

          The numbers come from DEQ’s information from last year, when various proposals were being discussed.

  3. I’m for solar *appropriately*. This isn’t appropriate. Given the higher prices that come with renewable energy (just ask Germany) and to wang it on the SW Va. people is nuts.

    • VN,

      Don’t mistake what is happening in Germany with the present situation in the US. Even Dominion recognizes that solar is now the lowest cost means of new generation in Virginia. It is intermittent, but very predictable in its output. A significant increase in its use can be accomplished in Virginia without huge grid investments, although the grid does need to be improved for a variety of reasons.

      Germany started to transform their energy system eight years ago, largely to phase out their reliance on nuclear units in response to Fukishima. They used large subsidies to kick-start the transition. They are still paying a price for that.

      Solar subsidies are much smaller than the subsidies for fossil and nuclear generation in the U.S. and are scheduled to be phased out in the early 2020s.

    • Absolutely right! Germany is the example we should look at; and learn from. They are heading into a mess over there, and seem hell-bent on making it worse by banning all coal as well as nuclear generation.

  4. I have not read Delegate Rasoul’s bill, so I cannot address that directly. However, I would like to offer information that is different than what is presented in the article.

    I do not read from your summary that the bill would outlaw existing fossil fuel sources but rather prohibit the addition of new fossil-fired sources of generation. Dominion has nearly volunteered that already. They have announced that they do not intend to build any more large combined cycle generating plants. The addition of the Greensville plant gave them significantly more capacity than is required to meet their demand in Virginia, plus the necessary reserve requirements. The only fossil-fired units that are still in the 15-year plan are the peaking units that you refer to. It is not obvious at this time that these units will be necessary, or if so, cost-effective.

    There are more than two ways to deal with the intermittency of renewable generation. Combined-cycle units and other intermediate-load units operating at less than full capacity can increase their output, demand response measures, and storage can also be used.

    You say “If you don’t build the peaker plants, demand will periodically exceed supply, leading to widespread blackouts and brownouts.” I am not sure what you are basing this on. First of all, demand for electricity is not growing and is unlikely to even with added data centers, added population and higher economic activity. Look at the last 10 years of weather normalized electricity use in Dominion’s IRPs. Demand is flat or declining and is likely to stay that way, even without an effective energy efficiency program that would replace aging fossil and nuclear units at near zero expense.

    I don’t understand how libertarian economics justifies spending money on things that are unnecessary. Building new gas-fired peakers would commit ratepayers to 35-40 years of payments, even if the units were useful for a decade or less. We are not at any risk of blackouts. PJM has 75% more capacity than they need to meet reserve requirements and that doesn’t count the older units that are available but are not counted in the current capacity totals.

    Other states have found that it does not pay to build facilities that must be paid for year-round when they are needed only a small percentage of the time. The whole concept behind PJM is to have the next most cost-effective unit meet the added demand. You are arguing that we should guarantee our Virginia utilities a long-term stream of income for something we can get much more cheaply in other ways. This is a form of corporate welfare that you are normally against.

    If our peaks remain constant or decline, we can use resources wherever they exist within PJM at the lowest price without adding more transmission. Adding local renewable generation, storage and demand response will free up even more transmission capacity.

    Batteries are already cost-effective for load shifting. If we remove the obstacles, a significant amount of storage capacity will be added throughout our distribution system at residential, commercial, and industrial locations at no cost to ratepayers. Perhaps as early as next year, new battery formulations using new blends of nickel and cobalt in addition to lithium and other components will greatly increase storage capacities (already at 4 hours at full discharge – about the same amount of time that peakers run), while lowering the cost and offering other advantages well beyond what peakers provide.

    Continuing to rely on a large central station design with primarily utility-owned generation is the greatest threat to reliability. It is a high-risk, brittle way of operating an energy system as evidenced by decades of large-scale blackouts. Your arguments sound like what I heard for years from large computer manufacturers about how it would be impossible for a network of PCs to outperform mainframes. History has proven otherwise. We are seeing the same resistance to allowing a micro-grid network of a wide variety of generating technologies, storage, demand response, etc. to replace aging fossil-fired generation.

    Reed argues that gas is an answer to climate change. It is not. It only reduces carbon output compared to coal. The total greenhouse gas effects (due to methane leaks) are the same as coal. Refurbishing our nuclear units will increase energy costs dramatically. How is that a step forward?

    We need to look at energy systems through a 21st century lens. Not the way we saw things in the 20th century. Times they are a changin’.

    • Tom, I think my post was clear that the bill would ban any new fossil fuel plants. I’m not arguing that we should build new peaking units, only that it’s folly to ban them. We need to keep that option open. What you say above about future demand and the impact of conservation may well be true. But maybe it’s not. You don’t have skin in the game. Neither does Rasoul. You lose nothing if you’re wrong. The power companies have a lot to lose. So do the rate payers. I err on the side of caution.

      • re: ” You lose nothing if you’re wrong.” is that true also with Global Warming skeptics?

        re: ” I err on the side of caution.” well that’s EXACTLY what folks who do believe in the potential of Global Warming… we can never be 100% sure but when the evidence mounts – many folks say EXACTLY: ” I err on the side of caution.”

        By the way – I DO agree with any logic that says we must continue to use fossil fuels until we actually do have clear alternatives – and we do not yet but using fossil fuels does NOT mean with complete abandon. We should do whatever we can do to cut back and that INCLUDES using wind/solar when they are available. The fact that they are not “dispatchable” is really a bogus argument because if you do use them when they ARE available – we DO reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn. A if we had a LOT more wind/solar – we’d burn a LOT LESS fossil fuels and only have to use fossil fuels at those times when there is no wind/solar available.

        We continue to make this a binary argument that basically says that we can’t rely on wind/solar because they are not dispatchable. That’s a bogus argument because it’s not about total reliance – it’s about REDUCING fossil fuel use when we can – and we CAN if we build more wind/solar and use gas when we have to.

        If we do that and use conservation – we REDUCE our use of fossil fuels until such time that batteries start to become cost-effective and we then begin to transition. Even then, we’ll still need gas. It will never go entirely away but we may keep it’s use to a minimum instead of relying on it for electricity primarily.

        It all depends on how you hold your mouth on this issue, in my view.

      • Jim,

        My position is based on the same premise it has always been based on – developing a reliable, modern energy system that serves the customers’ and the energy companies’ interests.

        We have skilled organizations such as PJM and the SCC, whose job it is to assure a reliable supply of energy. I am only proposing that we let them do their job. If we open up the various ways (including distributed energy resources, for example) that we can use to develop our energy system, we will develop a better, cleaner, lower-cost system.

        And I have continued to advocate that we need to change the way we pay our utilities so they can continue to prosper and serve us well even if they are no longer responsible for every aspect of our electrical system. They would still maintain overall responsibility for reliable operation within their service territories. They would just be collaborating with more partners to accomplish that. Welcome to the modern age!

        Some of the options that I have described might not be the best solution. Something else might be better. But we will only discover that if we move beyond the constrained, utility/GA dominated process that we have today.

        We already have guardrails in place to assure adequate generation and reliable operation. We are in the fortunate position of currently having much more generating capacity than we will need for years to come.

        I am proposing to open up the marketplace for more innovative, lower-cost solutions that increase customer choices – in a way that also provides utilities with more profit opportunities, if they earn them.

        I would think that this approach would appeal to conservative/libertarian points of view. Otherwise, we will continue with a system where a few companies can pull the levers of power in ways that benefit only themselves.

        I think our major investor-owned utilities are very capable of succeeding under a modern regulatory scheme. For the sake of our citizens and state economy, we should give them that chance.

        Under our current energy policies ratepayers and the state economy are losing in a big way from the billions in added energy costs built into our recent energy bills. This might help the utilities in the short-term but customers can choose to use less energy using energy efficiency or self-generation. Bills are being proposed to foreclose those options to preserve utility revenues. Such an approach will end badly for the utilities in the long run. Let’s develop a more sensible policy while we still have a surplus of reasonably-priced electricity. That would be the more cautious approach.

        • Tom, you’re very persuasive, and you’ve definitely influenced my thinking on a number of issues. However, I don’t see how enacting arbitrary mandates does any good, especially if the no-fossil-fuels mandate is not accompanied by — preferably preceded by — the kinds of reforms you’re talking about.

          If the power companies enact the conservation, renewable and distributed grid measures you talk about and they work, you won’t even need the mandate — your vision will unfold naturally. But if the measures don’t work entirely as anticipated — and let’s be honest, they don’t always, just look at Germany, for instance — you’ll have a heckuva problem on your hands.

  5. If/when we get cost-effective batteries – it’s game over for fossil fuels and nuclear but I’m a heavy skeptic about the “when”.

    The “intermittent, non-dispatchable aspect of renewables will evaporate and our perspective of them will shift to “harvesting when available and storing for later”.

    We’ll know WHEN that happens when places that use diesel fuel to generate electricity switch over to wind/solar/battery because of the higher cost of diesel will be the first fossil fuel to fall to solar/batt.

    And in terms of electricity demand – what happens if/when vehicles switch from fossil fuels to electric?

    I’m optimistic but pragmatic. We WILL find a cost-effective battery – but unless we see some short-term game-changer discovery on batteries, it’s going to be a long slough.

    The enviros see catastrophe and cost is not the same issue it is to the skeptics who essentially believe it’s a horrible waste of resources.

  6. Rasoul’s bill is mainly directed against the ACP and MVP pipeline projects, I believe. However, it does call for Virginia to transition to entirely 100% renewable power by 2036. It passed out of committee to force a public, recorded vote by all delegates.

    I don’t think Rasoul expected the bill to survive the committee process. So, what do the Dems do now with it?

  7. Well…. Rasoul says other things also – like: ” Democratic Del. Sam Rasoul said it “doesn’t seem fair at all” for ratepayers to have to pay to clean up Dominion’s pollution costs.” in response to the agreement to go forward with cleanup.

  8. Let’s face it — renewables and distributed grids are the future, if not immediately, then long-term. Energy mossbacks always say you need big, hulking base-loaded fossil fuel or nuclear plants. Traditional utilities like Dominion perpetuate the argument because they are desperately afraid of having assets including these stranded. New coal plants are non-starters. New nukes are tremendously expensive. For evidence look no farther than South Carolina where SCANA’s new project went famously bust and ended up being bought by Dominion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pushing towards the future as this bill does.
    To say that anyone who reads this blog knows that big fossil and nuke plants are absolutely necessary is just plain wrong. It’s like saying that coal ash ponds “might” leak when they obviously do leak. The way these posts massage wording makes it seem like Dominion is still footing part of the bill for the outlet.

  9. Peter, it’s hard to take you seriously when you spout nonsense like this: “To say that anyone who reads this blog knows that big fossil and nuke plants are absolutely necessary is just plain wrong.”

    I never said or implied such a thing. The closest I came to that formulation is this: “The problem, as every reader of Bacon’s Rebellion knows, is that wind and solar are not dispatchable — that is, electric utilities cannot turn them on and off to meet fluctuations in demand.”

    If you can’t see the world of difference between the two, then you need to work on your remedial reading.

    • “To say that anyone who reads this blog knows that big fossil and nuke plants are absolutely necessary is just plain wrong.”

      Yes, and that is about to change.

  10. Jim,
    This is what you wrote;

    “The problem, as every reader of Bacon’s Rebellion knows, is that wind and solar are not dispatchable — that is, electric utilities cannot turn them on and off to meet fluctuations in demand.”

    I never said you are involved in a Dominion sponsorship now but you were for a few years.

  11. re: ” I never said or implied such a thing. The closest I came to that formulation is this: “The problem, as every reader of Bacon’s Rebellion knows, is that wind and solar are not dispatchable — that is, electric utilities cannot turn them on and off to meet fluctuations in demand.”

    AND neither are NUKES – in terms of ramping them up or down.

    They’re either full ON or full off.

    And that makes them 100% incompatible with wind/solar.

    I support Nukes – for baseload only – to the extent that they’re always on and ALL of their power is used. Beyond that – what would one support for the loads that are in excess of what the Nukes can produce?

    Don’t pick coal because coal has the same problem as Nukes – it cannot quickly ramp up and down so it’s too is not compatible with renewables.

    Only combined-cycle gas and peaker gas can operate in concert with wind/solar.

    And that means gas can modulate lower when wind/solar are generating and then modulate higher when they are not.

    the Nukes can’t do that and so while they are “dispatchable” – they’re not able to modulate and that limits them also because they are so expensive that they are not cost effective unless you run them 24/7 and now – they’re not even cost effective against gas which pretty much makes them almost obsolete except they have zero emissions but still have a big problem with disposal which as Dick Hall Sizemore correctly stated that coal-ash is chump change compared to how to deal with nuke disposal.

    But yes.. Peter is right – I think over time and many comments, you have established yourself as a critic/skeptic of renewables… you almost always point out that they are not dispatchable while not admitting that where they ARE valuable is in reducing how much fossil fuel is burned when we CAN offset that with wind/solar. Evertime we use wind/solar – we DON’T burn fossil fuels. In other words wind/solar REDUCE the burning of fossil fuels.

    Every bit of reduced burning of fossil fuels COUNTS in overall reductions.

    • Larry –

      “The problem, as every reader of Bacon’s Rebellion knows, is that wind and solar are not dispatchable — that is, electric utilities cannot turn them on and off to meet fluctuations in demand.”

      AND neither are NUKES – in terms of ramping them up or down. They’re either full ON or full off. And that makes them 100% incompatible with wind/solar.”

      Larry, as is so often chronically the case, you are totally wrong. You should get out of the habit of peering down silos. Should you do that, you will discover a bright and beautiful world outside.

  12. Reed – you are certainly entitled to your opinion guy but not ad hominems –

    The TRUTH here is that the non-dispatchability is NOT the issue. The issue is can wind/solar be used to offset burning fossil fuels. Can it be managed and harvested to do that – and the answer to that is YES.

    And NUKEs ARE dispatchable when they are up 24/7 – but they are not able to modulate – which if you think about it rather than misusing your addled brain – that means that wind/solar cannot be used in concert with Nukes because there is no savings of fuel and in fact, the generation cannot be dialed down at all – and this would be true even if there was no wind/solar at all and the demand on the grid was lower than what the nukes were putting out – they still have to run 24/7 flat out.

    That’s why they are called baseload guy.

    You need to do a little reading and a little less blathering.

    • Good Larry: Reed, don’t use ad hominem attacks.

      Bad Larry: Reed, you are “misusing your addled brain” and you are “blathering.”

      • Oh you did get me but you let Reed run on across many posts guy. How about equal treatment?

        Remember Reed actually tried to hold a “vote” a while back… then he got upset because I commented on one of his responses… and now for a while he’s been at this tactic.

        If you don’t rein him in – he’s going to go on … and I will eventually respond but my preference is to ignore him and I probably should.

        My bad. But you should not let anyone do what he is doing now…

Leave a Reply