pcray1231
Well-known member
I agree too, but being in the business, recognize the time necessary.
I'm very pro renewables. And renewables are growing. However, the grid needs major upgrades before intermittent sources like wind and solar can be much more than 10% of the power gen in this country. Those upgrades aren't something you can do. There are thousands upon thousands of separate upgrades needed and it will take years.
There are still major design improvements needed to get wind and solar as economically viable in more than a handful of places in this country (wind in the plains, solar in the desert southwest). An entire industry needs to be built out, i.e. the solar cell and wind turbine manufacturers are still rather small businesses that just can't put out the volume that would be necessary. To get there, you need to build major manufacturing plants. And those take years to get running, as even after building the thing and working out the bugs, it'll take 5-10 years to get all of the government qualifications and so forth just to be able to enter the market on a mass scale.
The power gen industry isn't a sports car that can turn on a dime. It's like trying to steer the Titanic. The regulatory nature of America means that the status quo is largely grandfathered and can be expanded easily and cheaply, but doing ANYTHING new will be 20 years before you can really ramp up. If you wanted to build a new bridge over the Delaware, for instance, if you started today you MIGHT break ground in 15 years at the earliest, and it could be 30 if anyone opposes you. But add another lane to an existing bridge? No problem. You can start tomorrow.
In the big picture, gas is improving the existing bridge. It's much, much better than coal, environmentally speaking. The infrastructure is already in place, as are "most" of the regulations, so it counts as expanding existing practices and can be implemented quickly. It's economically viable from day 1, actually, not just viable, but actually better. It gets us moving in the right direction and gives the renewables time to ramp up.
I'm also a proponent of nuclear and geothermal (as in centralized geothermal power plants in the west, not the heat pump variety, though those are good too, just a different discussion).
And I say all of this as a conservative, supply and demand type guy. I believe, long term, wind and solar are absolutely economically viable. There's some issue in that the corporations, IMO, are too short sighted, focusing on profits in the 3-5 year timeframe rather than the 30-50 year timeframe. CEO's have the same disease as politicians, in that their decisions are based on what makes them look good, rather than what's good for the long term health of the country/company. Still, things are changing a bit. If you look at R&D level work (stuff that's 10+ years out), the big names in solar and wind are names like Exxon, BP, Shell, and on the service side Haliburton, Schlumberger/Baker Hughes, etc.
I'm very pro renewables. And renewables are growing. However, the grid needs major upgrades before intermittent sources like wind and solar can be much more than 10% of the power gen in this country. Those upgrades aren't something you can do. There are thousands upon thousands of separate upgrades needed and it will take years.
There are still major design improvements needed to get wind and solar as economically viable in more than a handful of places in this country (wind in the plains, solar in the desert southwest). An entire industry needs to be built out, i.e. the solar cell and wind turbine manufacturers are still rather small businesses that just can't put out the volume that would be necessary. To get there, you need to build major manufacturing plants. And those take years to get running, as even after building the thing and working out the bugs, it'll take 5-10 years to get all of the government qualifications and so forth just to be able to enter the market on a mass scale.
The power gen industry isn't a sports car that can turn on a dime. It's like trying to steer the Titanic. The regulatory nature of America means that the status quo is largely grandfathered and can be expanded easily and cheaply, but doing ANYTHING new will be 20 years before you can really ramp up. If you wanted to build a new bridge over the Delaware, for instance, if you started today you MIGHT break ground in 15 years at the earliest, and it could be 30 if anyone opposes you. But add another lane to an existing bridge? No problem. You can start tomorrow.
In the big picture, gas is improving the existing bridge. It's much, much better than coal, environmentally speaking. The infrastructure is already in place, as are "most" of the regulations, so it counts as expanding existing practices and can be implemented quickly. It's economically viable from day 1, actually, not just viable, but actually better. It gets us moving in the right direction and gives the renewables time to ramp up.
I'm also a proponent of nuclear and geothermal (as in centralized geothermal power plants in the west, not the heat pump variety, though those are good too, just a different discussion).
And I say all of this as a conservative, supply and demand type guy. I believe, long term, wind and solar are absolutely economically viable. There's some issue in that the corporations, IMO, are too short sighted, focusing on profits in the 3-5 year timeframe rather than the 30-50 year timeframe. CEO's have the same disease as politicians, in that their decisions are based on what makes them look good, rather than what's good for the long term health of the country/company. Still, things are changing a bit. If you look at R&D level work (stuff that's 10+ years out), the big names in solar and wind are names like Exxon, BP, Shell, and on the service side Haliburton, Schlumberger/Baker Hughes, etc.
