WP: Amid explosive demand, America is running out of power

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, Destino said:

 

Is it odd to see a democrat be willing to spend on big infrastructure projects that create lots of middle class jobs and keep energy costs low? That’s practically the platform. That’s what won us the working class. And facts? You’ve offered unestablished social costs and sending jobs away because we don’t really need them. With promises of making CEOs pay for it, that rings about as true as Mexico paying for a border wall. When have democrats ever balked at infrastructure spending? 
 

Want to hit CEOs in the pocketbook? Tax Capital Gains exactly like income. Raise taxes on the top tax bracket. Fund the IRS. Want to hit companies and help workers? Expand unions. 
 

 

 

 

Tech has grown more efficient over time though. Significantly so. Everything from light bulbs to computer processors to washing machines have grown more efficient over time without having to choke the life out of our own economy. Suddenly we’re against infrastructure spending? Should we stop subsidizing green energy too? It wouldn’t have gotten off the ground had we done that. Infrastructure spending grows the economy and improves quality of life. It can also shift us away from fossil fuels. 
 

Sending jobs away and making our lives more expensive is not what we elect democrats to do. 
 

Nuclear is part of the energy future, expensive as it may be. So is energy research.

 

Your post plays directly into what I was saying about ignoring things.  No where and nothing I've said can be concluded to say I'm against infrastructure spending.  No where have I said I want to send jobs away.  But not every job is worth any costs.  I've not said that companies can't/won't grow more efficient.  I said that wasn't their fundamental objective and there are things that we can do to make it more likely and less likely and subsidizing their true energy costs makes it less likely.  Only by going to ridiculous extremes that aren't relevant to my posts do your posts have any validity.  And that's right out of the good old fashioned GOP handbook.  

 

We should consider the true costs and full societal benefits of infrastructure projects.  I've specifically said nuclear is part of the future.  It just has to be put into context, we have to understand the costs, think about how to recoup those costs, and think about managing the near and mid-term energy needs too that building more nuclear makes harder.

 

The ability to make CEOs pay for higher taxes based on their energy needs vs. investing to increase efficiency and saving money long term depends directly on how much of a functional free market we have.  If we don't have a functional free market but instead our markets have a high monopolistic component to them, then those costs can/will more likely be largely passed onto consumers and not impact CEO pay.  If we do, then that will happen less.  Things like patent laws/enforcement will also matter (e.g. who benefits and for how long from new technology that increases efficiency).  Those are all things that we should consider too.  However, even if the costs are passed onto the consumer, the money from the tax can be redistributed to the larger population with minimal impact to the average and lower income consumer.

 

What built the middle class was mostly investing in people.  Going back far enough requiring a high school education and building schools for people to go to.  More recently, things like the GI bill and affordable college.  We have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world and the countries that are lower than us (e.g. India) don't have a robust middle class.  And over the last 60 years or so in the US inflation adjusted electricity prices have actually come down.  When adjusted for inflation, electricity in the US easily costs less today than it did through the 1920-1960s when the middle class was actually being built.  Yet, that hasn't supported continued growth of the middle class.  What it has supported is more class stratification.  The idea that there is a relationship between a robust middle class and low energy prices just isn't supported by the data.  The data supports that what low energy prices actually support is class stratification with large gaps between the very wealthy and the very poor.

 

But let's not let actual facts and numbers get in the way of a good story.

 

Countries like Germany do pretty much what I've been saying.  They charge a lot for electricity, and they use subsidies/tax breaks to lower it for individuals and certain industries that actually employ a lot of people (and I'll note industry in Germany has been complaining for decades about their energy costs and threatening it would cause deindustrialization of Germany, and they've been wrong.  They've been doing the same fear mongering you are in this thread.  And it hasn't happened.  twa used to make posts about how German industry was going to go under because of high energy costs.  And while the German middle class has shrunk some, it hasn't shrunk to the extent that ours has.  Because Germany historically has invested in people and not things for companies. .(Though, note I am not advocating the German energy policy of decarbonization and denuclearization at the same time.  That would be a mistake IMO.  I don't support denuclearization or decarbonization given the current situation.  I also don't really like Germany's tax/subsidy schemes, but it would be better than what we do.))

 

Long term, companies will be where there are high quality and productive workers because those workers will build companies (as long as there are also reasonable natural resources in the area which we don't have a problem with).  Investing in people has larger societal benefits and benefits a broad spectrum of industries and companies and not just energy hungry ones.  You want to see a robust middle class, every kid in this country should be able to go to a school without having to worry about what is in the walls (asbestos) and drink the water (not have lead in it).  We should have a robust GED program.  And people that want to go to college and actually work at it should be able to do so.

 

But you won't get for money for those things.  Those things are "local".  Because those things mean little Johnny (or today Hunter) might get passed over by a Hassan or Manuel.  But you will get money to build huge infrastructure projects that mostly benefit the wealthy and the status quo.  It isn't about building the middle class or supporting the middle class.  The wealthy will support money going to build things that support industry because they primarily benefit.  They won't support money going to things that are actually investments in people.  If it was about building a middle class, getting money for early childhood development, to build schools, fund tech programs, help people get to college, etc would be easier. 

 

If you think building nuclear power plants and keeping energy costs low for industries that don't employ many people but use a lot of energy is about building a middle class, you either are deluding yourself or have been deluded.  It is looking like to me that you've bought into some good old fashioned GOP talking points.  We've got limited money (unless you're a believer in MMT).  We have to put some money into electricity, but we should try to ensure it is being used as efficiently as possible and taxing entities that use a lot of electricity for their use helps do that.  Most money should be put into investing in people.

 

(I do agree with capital gains taxes, raising the top tax bracket, and the IRS.  But I'll also note those things don't directly impact CEO pay.  They're easily less likely to impact CEO pay then higher taxes on energy for companies that use a lot of energy.  At least in the case of taxes based on energy consumption, I can imagine ways they would impact CEO pay.  The things give you are talking about can't.  What they do is give you money to do other things.  And I agree about unions, but unions fundamentally are about investing in people/workers.  So you won't see industry/money lining up behind that either.)

 

(And now we are way OT.)

Edited March 9 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Nuclear power has the highest cost per killowatt, so at the end of the day you don’t even get much from your investment…..

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

Edited March 9 by CousinsCowgirl84

[philibusters]

On 3/7/2024 at 9:23 PM, PeterMP said:

Nuclear power plants take years and even decades to build, and it isn't just regulation.  There is like one company that makes many of the parts, and they're backed up.

 

And unlike other things building more and as the technology has matured the cost of building one has gone up and not down.

 

https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/

 

In 2006, there was an application to build a nuclear power plants on site in GA where there already was one.  As of 2024 after nearly 2 decades of time and price over runs, the company that was originally building them going bankrupt and despite the US government putting up over $8 billion on loan guarantees back in 2010, one of them became operational in July 2023 and the other just in March of this year.

 

 

 

Saying build more nuclear power plants is a fine solution if you are planning on having an energy crisis in 2055 and don't care what the final costs will be. (Unless you have some plan also to change how they are built.)

 

 

 

No matter it is going to probably take around 10 years to get a plant online.   I believe if they just went with cookie cutters designs that have already been used before rather than trying to improve it and build something innovative, you can avoid the disaster that happened in Georgia with the costs overruns and super slow progress.  You never want to discourage innovation, but if new designs are risky, go with a cookie cutter design.  I think some of the failures of the past 20 years of nuclear power could have been avoided with that strategy.

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

No matter it is going to probably take around 10 years to get a plant online.   I believe if they just went with cookie cutters designs that have already been used before rather than trying to improve it and build something innovative, you can avoid the disaster that happened in Georgia with the costs overruns and super slow progress.  You never want to discourage innovation, but if new designs are risky, go with a cookie cutter design.  I think some of the failures of the past 20 years of nuclear power could have been avoided with that strategy.

 

We can build a small natural gas power plant designed to be run during peak demand (they are called peakers) on preexisting sites in 2 years or even less after approval.

 

A new full sized natural gas called Guernsey Power Station was built on a new site in OH in 7 years (approved in 2016 came online in 2023), and they even had issues where they didn't build for a year and the pandemic.  I think that's generally considered a bad case scenario today for such a thing.

 

Some of the newer ones that are hybrid natural gas/alternative energy take longer, but even then I think they expect to go from approval to functional in less than 10 years.

 

I don't think there really is such a thing as a cookie cutter nuclear plant.  They don't get built often enough, and they depend on the site (where is the water coming from).  Also the newer ones are supposed to be safer and last longer which if you are going to be waiting and are talking about nuclear makes sense to wait.  Putting up because it is faster that isn't as safe could be a costly decision with nuclear power. 

[Renegade7]

[philibusters]

13 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

We can build a small natural gas power plant designed to be run during peak demand (they are called peakers) on preexisting sites in 2 years or even less after approval.

 

A new full sized natural gas called Guernsey Power Station was built on a new site in OH in 7 years (approved in 2016 came online in 2023), and they even had issues where they didn't build for a year and the pandemic.  I think that's generally considered a bad case scenario today for such a thing.

 

Some of the newer ones that are hybrid natural gas/alternative energy take longer, but even then I think they expect to go from approval to functional in less than 10 years.

 

I don't think there really is such a thing as a cookie cutter nuclear plant.  They don't get built often enough, and they depend on the site (where is the water coming from).  Also the newer ones are supposed to be safer and last longer which if you are going to be waiting and are talking about nuclear makes sense to wait.  Putting up because it is faster that isn't as safe could be a costly decision with nuclear power. 

 

Ultimately I agree with your point that nuclear is not going to be an answer for anything in the next 10 years, maybe even 15 years.  I don't know the details of nuclear power plants and if there is such a thing as a cookie cutter design.  I watched an interview though where they asked what went wrong with one of the plants that was scrapped because it was so far behind and over cost and the answer was it was a new design that had never been built before and maybe not a great design at that.  The person being interviewed said if they had followed the design of a plant already built they would have avoided most of the delays and over costs.   That said I support nuclear power as a long term investment.   Once it is operational it safe and does not pollute the environment.  Looking at the long term natural gas while the cleanest of fossil fuels is still a fossil fuel that is still going to contribute to global warming and while natural gas has an abundant supply for next few generations it is still a finite resource that will eventually exhaust.

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

Ultimately I agree with your point that nuclear is not going to be an answer for anything in the next 10 years, maybe even 15 years.  I don't know the details of nuclear power plants and if there is such a thing as a cookie cutter design.  I watched an interview though where they asked what went wrong with one of the plants that was scrapped because it was so far behind and over cost and the answer was it was a new design that had never been built before and maybe not a great design at that.  The person being interviewed said if they had followed the design of a plant already built they would have avoided most of the delays and over costs.   That said I support nuclear power as a long term investment.   Once it is operational it safe and does not pollute the environment.  Looking at the long term natural gas while the cleanest of fossil fuels is still a fossil fuel that is still going to contribute to global warming and while natural gas has an abundant supply for next few generations it is still a finite resource that will eventually exhaust.

 

I wouldn't go as to say there is no pollution.  Leaks of radioactivity from nuclear power plants do happen.  They tend to be of low amounts of not very dangerous isotopes, but there have been cases where low amounts of them have leaked undetected for years.  

 

https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii-ap-impact-tritium-leaks-found-at-many-nuke-sites

 

I don't know of any reported cases where tritium has made it into ground drinking water, but that certainly is a possibility and would be dangerous.  And then you have cases where there's a melt down, and I'd certainly call leaked radioactivity in those cases pollution.

 

Worrying about natural gas running out seems unnecessary to me.  All of the plants we'd build any time soon would be decommissioned and aged out by the time that happens.

 

In terms of climate change, unless we are committed to stopping the production of fossil fuels, including natural gas and having at least several other countries do the same, worrying about using it seems a bit ridiculous.  When we can get ourselves, Canada, and the Nordic countries to talk about capping production of fossil fuels, then worrying about using it might make sense.

 

But even Democrats are bragging about how fossil fuel production is up under Biden.

Edited March 10 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

@Renegade7

 

No country in the world has the ability to maintain their economy based on their current electric grid or current ability to produce and distribute electricity.  Improving grids and electrical production to the point they can will require huge amounts of raw materials, manufacturing, and work which all require fossil fuels.  Before you get to the point in time that nuclear energy can prevent climate change, you will have used too many fossil fuels for it to matter.  Building nuclear power plants generates a ton of fossil fuels.

 

The only hope of ever doing anything about climate change without large socioeconomic changes required finding some sort of transitional fuel that could heavily use the existing fossil fuel infrastructure, and then could be used to build a more electric based economy (if necessary).

 

And it is too late for that.  I don't know if we could have ever found such a fuel/technology.  But if there was something that could have been used, we didn't put enough money into finding it soon enough.

 

In terms of climate change, today we have 2 options:

1.  Deal with it by having a pretty massive reduction in our energy consumption and the associated socioeconomic changes that will have to come with it.  Longer term, after electrification can be carried out, then maybe you can let it adjust back to something more resembling where we are now.  But that's longer term.

 

2.  Deal with it by letting it happen and do what we can to mitigate the effects of it.

 

Nuclear never was or could be the solution to climate change without massive socioeconomic changes.  It at best had to be the 2nd or 3rd thing after you transitioned to something else.

 

**EDIT**

And as @CousinsCowgirl84 graphic nicely points out nuclear is the most expensive way we currently generate electricity and that doesn't even include the long term costs of storage of waste and costs when there are melt downs.  So even if you had some sort of magic way to electrify the global economy without using fossil fuels, the costs of energy would still have to go up which almost certainly then require socioeconomic changes.

Edited March 11 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

@PeterMP

 

Neccesity is the mother of invention.

 

I'd love to see a future where we're more efficient, but bring folks out of poverty will eat into these gains.

 

Letting in collapse isn't an option.

[PeterMP]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Neccesity is the mother of invention.

 

It certainly seems in this case that the invention that has come from the necessity has not been sufficient.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

51 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

@Renegade7

 

No country in the world has the ability to maintain their economy based on their current electric grid or current ability to produce and distribute electricity.  Improving grids and electrical production to the point they can will require huge amounts of raw materials, manufacturing, and work which all require fossil fuels.  Before you get to the point in time that nuclear energy can prevent climate change, you will have used too many fossil fuels for it to matter.  Building nuclear power plants generates a ton of fossil fuels.

 

The only hope of ever doing anything about climate change without large socioeconomic changes required finding some sort of transitional fuel that could heavily use the existing fossil fuel infrastructure, and then could be used to build a more electric based economy (if necessary).

 

And it is too late for that.  I don't know if we could have ever found such a fuel/technology.  But if there was something that could have been used, we didn't put enough money into finding it soon enough.

 

In terms of climate change, today we have 2 options:

1.  Deal with it by having a pretty massive reduction in our energy consumption and the associated socioeconomic changes that will have to come with it.  Longer term, after electrification can be carried out, then maybe you can let it adjust back to something more resembling where we are now.  But that's longer term.

 

2.  Deal with it by letting it happen and do what we can to mitigate the effects of it.

 

Nuclear never was or could be the solution to climate change without massive socioeconomic changes.  It at best had to be the 2nd or 3rd thing after you transitioned to something else.

 

**EDIT**

And as @CousinsCowgirl84 graphic nicely points out nuclear is the most expensive way we currently generate electricity.  So even if you had some sort of magic way to electrify the global economy without using fossil fuels, the costs of energy would still have to go up which almost certainly then require socioeconomic changes.

One might argue that scales production of nuclear might lower its costs, but I wouldn’t 😱

[Renegade7]

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

It certainly seems in this case that the invention that has come from the necessity has not been sufficient.

 

Doesn't mean give up.

 

I like the idea of limiting permits for data centers, especially if they center on crypto.

 

Letting the private sector regulate its own consumption is wishful thinking, and I'm the optimist.

 

Government will have to make hard choices that for their and our own sake better prioritize the citizens that put them their and their needs (like utilities, emergency response, mandatory government systems).

 

I can see a grid where every building gets a rank of priority that allows for limiting power (okay, every with Level 5 is getting no power from grid during this heat wave) and that may force Improvements in self-sufficiency and efficiency (more efficient processors, better batteries, generators becoming more common).

 

Maybe the final solution hasn't been fleshed out yet...there's a middle ground to bridge that gap, we need to at least find that.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Doesn't mean give up.

 

At some point in time practically, we have to "give up".  If you have to get from a to b by some time, at some time you have to stop working on the best way to get to b and start moving to b.

 

And resources and time put into the best way to get to b can/should be used to get to b.

 

Reducing consumption is going to require time, money, and resources, including fossil fuels (e.g. building more green buildings is going to require things that require fossil fuels).  Time, money, and fossil fuels spent on finding some new technology that allows us to just advance forward under the current socioeconomic system could be used to help in that transition.

 

Mitigating is going to require time, money, and resources, including fossil fuels (e.g. @Corcaigh talked earlier in this thread about building reservoirs, which are likely going to require heavy machines that use fossil fuels).

 

(I will admit that above I pointed out the two options as extremes and separate, but you can at least try to split the difference.  Reduce consumption in some cases and mitigate in others (and even reduce production by electrifying and decarbonizing along the way).)

 

We're to the point that we can't keep hoping something is coming along that sort of allows us to keep doing what we've been doing and fixes the problem.  We have to select a path/plan and have to put time, money, and resources into it.

 

(Realistically, what is going to happen is we aren't going to pick a plan/path.  The GOP doesn't care and too many Dems are going to stick their heads in the sand and think that some how something will happen to fix the problem without hard choices and changes (which seems to be your case), and we'll more less end up with a mitigation process in a piecemeal manner.  Which will be the worse and most costly (in terms of money and human lives) path.  And many people will look back and say, ha climate change wasn't so bad without understanding the true costs that were/are being paid.  We'll get to b but it will be too late, but many people will then look around and say, hey we made it.  That wasn't too bad. Without realizing in actuality we paid huge costs for being too late and not doing enough soon enough in an organized manner to plan for being late.)

Edited March 11 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

@PeterMP

 

To be clear, saying "don't give up" doesnt mean keep doing what we doing and expecting different results.  That's insanity and the math on this one says that will collapse our advanced civilization.

 

No, it's toward your extreme proposal (that I took and you addressed) regarding letting the situation fail.  People will die, we should avoid that long as it's a choice.

 

I expect brownouts in NOVA in my lifetime, but because of how much critical infrastructure is in the area I expect some compensating control to come in place as part of what could be a hands forced pendulum swing.

 

Georgia Power has the the right to say they won't give power to a new customer based on what they are trying to build, that customer has the right to adapt or die in a capitalist country like the US.

 

Because we so badly underestimated our future supply versus future demand and any "solution" or "solutions" will take more time then what we have to avoid the repercussions of this colassol mistake, folks best get ready now.  I'm not talking dystopia survival shopping on Amazon...more like a "hold together, baby" transition period until the solution(s) are in place.

 

Ya. I'm in the "it's gonna get worse before it gets better" place on this one, but now we get to have honest conversation about cloud and AI because even readily accessible electricity is a finite resource.

[China]

Internet data centers are fueling drive to old power source: Coal

 

A helicopter hovers over the Gee family farm, the noisy rattle echoing inside their home in this rural part of West Virginia. It’s holding surveyors who are eyeing space for yet another power line next to the property — a line that will take electricity generated from coal plants in the state to address a drain on power driven by the world’s internet hub in Northern Virginia 35 miles away.

 

There, massive data centers with computers processing nearly 70 percent of global digital traffic are gobbling up electricity at a rate officials overseeing the power grid say is unsustainable unless two things happen: Several hundred miles of new transmission lines must be built, slicing through neighborhoods and farms in Virginia and three neighboring states. And antiquated coal-powered electricity plants that had been scheduled to go offline will need to keep running to fuel the increasing need for more power, undermining clean energy goals.

 

“It’s not right,” said Mary Gee, whose property already abuts two power lines that serve as conduits for electricity flowing toward the biggest concentration of data centers — in Loudoun County, home to what’s known as Data Center Alley. “These power lines? They’re not for me and my family. I didn’t vote on this. And the data centers? That’s not in West Virginia. That’s a whole different state.”

 

The $5.2 billion effort has fueled a backlash against data centers through the region, prompting officials in Virginia to begin studying the deeper impacts of an industry they’ve long cultivated for the hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue it brings to their communities.

 

Critics say it will force residents near the coal plants to continue living with toxic pollution, ironically to help a state — Virginia — that has fully embraced clean energy. And utility ratepayers in the affected areas will be forced to pay for the plan in the form of higher bills, those critics say.

 

But PJM Interconnection, the regional grid operator, says the plan is necessary to maintain grid reliability amid a wave of fossil fuel plant closures in recent years, prompted by the nation’s transition to cleaner power.

 

Click on the link for the full article