US continues to go forward

Donnyboy said:
So based on what I know.....that's a big disclaimer because they are aren't close to root cause on this......

"Unusual atmospheric and meteorological phenomena" sounds weak. That is no way shape or form an accusation of shenanigans but at this point in 2025 we have a pretty good idea about the weather and electricity and if there is was something that significant it ought to be jumping off the page. As in at 0921 hours the following happened in this precise location impacting this specific equipment causing a cascading blackout. Solar storm should have been well and precisely documented and that is the typical culprit for that widespread of an outage....those are known by us in real time.

Their grid is not nearly as robust as ours. It isn't as modern in it's protective schemes and isn't built for as harsh of environments. It takes less...a lot less....for that to happen there than here and I bet the final cause will show weakness maybe incompetence more than malice. If something that big occurred here we would know the trigger essentially instantly. I'm not saying there would be a final root cause with action items but we would know.....tornado hit 4 large subs cascading multiple lines, solar flare, sabotage......very quickly. I'm not saying Spain and Portugal don't have bad weather but it's not as extreme or diverse is ours, they don't have to make the geographical runs we do, and they have less need for security of all kinds. In short they have it easier.....they lost power for a day.....it doesn't justify as robust a grid as ours but once every rare now and again that is going to bite you.

The Green New Deal wouldn't make the grid more secure or reliable it would do the opposite. Transmission aspects were all but completely ignored. America wouldn't be in a blackout now if KH won. FERC/NERC are the checks and balances on that stuff and are still sane and mostly insulated from politics. The biggest impact would be significantly higher costs.
Click to expand...
So was the best option to completely scrap the GND? Or would a good option be to work together in finding a solution thats not all or nothing?

I'll assume you got your assertions about transmission aspects and higher costs from reading economic studies / expert analysis. If that's all true, why not work towards a better solution on those fronts rather than nuking the whole thing?
 
milehighpoke said:
So was the best option to completely scrap the GND? Or would a good option be to work together in finding a solution thats not all or nothing?

I'll assume you got your assertions about transmission aspects and higher costs from reading economic studies / expert analysis. If that's all true, why not work towards a better solution on those fronts rather than nuking the whole thing?
Click to expand...
The answer is always money. Transmission is extremely expensive. You have large land purchases and have to cover 100s/1000s of miles with expensive equipment. Very expensive specialized construction and maintenance. When I make most of these posts I’ll usually make a statement like “you’re talking x gozillion dollars and that’s not counting transmission” that’s because it kind of is what it is but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a huge cost and equally important. It gets lost a lot in these because it’s less controversial lines aren’t part of climate discussions type stuff. That’s why the Green New Deal didn’t address it in real terms and that’s not an indictment I get it when someone says they want to repower a nuke or coal you don’t here about the billion dollar line upgrade either….if you are pushing a bill with green in it carbon is king transmission is pass through and hardly anyone understands it. Most all major changes on the transmission side come out of events like this……they are designed with conservative factors at lowest cost as it doesn’t matter how you get your juice everyone pays for lines. Private built lines receive flat regulated pay schedules so they are going as low as possible regulated utility lines are going through utility commission type process aiming for the same. Example is our own grid and geomagnetic measures…..they weren’t a real thing till the NE blackout. In Texas we built massive long spans to accommodate renewables they broke or bent under the weight of a storm like Uri. They also tend to change in phases…..like “this equipment would stop a geomagnetic disturbance but we can’t do it for x number d years but if we add distance relays along all the lines in the next year we get there till then”. Also expensive.

The GND needs scrapped because it isn’t feasible. It will never work. Not because it isn’t great to get carbon less power because we would need a total overhaul of our most important infrastructure that works better than anywhere in the world at a lower cost. It’s a trillion number not billion. You can’t have weather dependent power and reliability. There is a fundamental disconnect in those. We need the Best Fit Responsibly Provide Reliable Power Bill….but that doesn’t fit the climate crowd or drill baby drill crowd.
 
Last edited:
Donnyboy said:
The answer is always money. Transmission is extremely expensive. You have large land purchases and have to cover 100s/1000s of miles with expensive equipment. Very expensive specialized construction and maintenance. When I make most of these posts I’ll usually make a statement like “you’re talking x gozillion dollars and that’s not counting transmission” that’s because it kind of is what it is but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a huge cost and equally important. It gets lost a lot in these because it’s less controversial lines aren’t part of climate discussions type stuff. That’s why the Green New Deal didn’t address it in real terms and that’s not an indictment I get it when someone says they want to repower a nuke or coal you don’t here about the billion dollar line upgrade either….if you are pushing a bill with green in it carbon is king transmission is pass through and hardly anyone understands it. Most all major changes on the transmission side come out of events like this……they are designed with conservative factors at lowest cost as it doesn’t matter how you get your juice everyone pays for lines. Private built lines receive flat regulated pay schedules so they are going as low as possible regulated utility lines are going through utility commission type process aiming for the same. Example is our own grid and geomagnetic measures…..they weren’t a real thing till the NE blackout. In Texas we built massive long spans to accommodate renewables they broke or bent under the weight of a storm like Uri. They also tend to change in phases…..like “this equipment would stop a geomagnetic disturbance but we can’t do it for x number d years but if we add distance relays along all the lines in the next year we get there till then”. Also expensive.

The GND needs scrapped because it isn’t feasible. It will never work. Not because it isn’t great to get carbon less power because we would need a total overhaul of our most important infrastructure that works better than anywhere in the world at a lower cost. It’s a trillion number not billion. You can’t have weather dependent power and reliability. There is a fundamental disconnect in those. We need the Best Fit Responsibly Provide Reliable Power Bill….but that doesn’t fit the climate crowd or drill baby drill crowd.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response. I'll be the first to admit most of this stuff goes way over my head. I just hope 1 day it doesn't have to be an all or nothing. Rather than changing the entire grid and spending trillions of dollars, finding ways to efficiently use renewable energy.

I'm in the climate crowd, so I'm hoping for some sort of solution before we all cook to death.
 
Donnyboy said:
The answer is always money. Transmission is extremely expensive. You have large land purchases and have to cover 100s/1000s of miles with expensive equipment. Very expensive specialized construction and maintenance. When I make most of these posts I’ll usually make a statement like “you’re talking x gozillion dollars and that’s not counting transmission” that’s because it kind of is what it is but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a huge cost and equally important. It gets lost a lot in these because it’s less controversial lines aren’t part of climate discussions type stuff. That’s why the Green New Deal didn’t address it in real terms and that’s not an indictment I get it when someone says they want to repower a nuke or coal you don’t here about the billion dollar line upgrade either….if you are pushing a bill with green in it carbon is king transmission is pass through and hardly anyone understands it. Most all major changes on the transmission side come out of events like this……they are designed with conservative factors at lowest cost as it doesn’t matter how you get your juice everyone pays for lines. Private built lines receive flat regulated pay schedules so they are going as low as possible regulated utility lines are going through utility commission type process aiming for the same. Example is our own grid and geomagnetic measures…..they weren’t a real thing till the NE blackout. In Texas we built massive long spans to accommodate renewables they broke or bent under the weight of a storm like Uri. They also tend to change in phases…..like “this equipment would stop a geomagnetic disturbance but we can’t do it for x number d years but if we add distance relays along all the lines in the next year we get there till then”. Also expensive.

The GND needs scrapped because it isn’t feasible. It will never work. Not because it isn’t great to get carbon less power because we would need a total overhaul of our most important infrastructure that works better than anywhere in the world at a lower cost. It’s a trillion number not billion. You can’t have weather dependent power and reliability. There is a fundamental disconnect in those. We need the Best Fit Responsibly Provide Reliable Power Bill….but that doesn’t fit the climate crowd or drill baby drill crowd.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this write up.

What are your thoughts on nuclear power with up to date reactor technology?
 
GratefulPoke said:
Thanks for this write up.

What are your thoughts on nuclear power with up to date reactor technology?
Click to expand...
It’s the biggest miss in the green movement and should be being used both in large scale 2+ GW installations and modular tech. The best grid would be large base load nuke, modular nuke and combined cycle gas chasing fluctuations in daily/seasonal peak demand, and simple cycle gas/liquid fuel for emergencies and system restoration.

It would be a lower cost essentially bullet proof set up. Our attitude toward nukes is similar to abandoning cars after some wrecks. I realize the catastrophic risk is huge but we are at a point in tech where Chernobyl never happens again.
 
Donnyboy said:
It’s the biggest miss in the green movement and should be being used both in large scale 2+ GW installations and modular tech. The best grid would be large base load nuke, modular nuke and combined cycle gas chasing fluctuations in daily/seasonal peak demand, and simple cycle gas/liquid fuel for emergencies and system restoration.

It would be a lower cost essentially bullet proof set up. Our attitude toward nukes is similar to abandoning cars after some wrecks. I realize the catastrophic risk is huge but we are at a point in tech where Chernobyl never happens again.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this breakdown, it is good to hear from someone with industry knowledge that it should be the foundation of us energy moving forward.
 
steross said:
Think he will introduce it again now when they have a majority and the presidency?

Nah. It wasn't for law, it was for show.
Click to expand...

He did! I guess that’s why it was in the news. But yeah we’ll see if they have the ballz.

www.hawley.senate.gov

Hawley Reintroduces PELOSI Act to Ban Congress from Trading Stocks - Josh Hawley

Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) reintroduced the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act, which would ban members of Congress from trading or holding individual stocks. The move comes after President Trump announced he would sign such a bill into...
www.hawley.senate.gov www.hawley.senate.gov
 
Bowers3 said:
He did! I guess that’s why it was in the news. But yeah we’ll see if they have the ballz.

www.hawley.senate.gov

Hawley Reintroduces PELOSI Act to Ban Congress from Trading Stocks - Josh Hawley

Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) reintroduced the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act, which would ban members of Congress from trading or holding individual stocks. The move comes after President Trump announced he would sign such a bill into...
www.hawley.senate.gov www.hawley.senate.gov
Click to expand...

Hey, that would be a huge victory for the people, and I'll take that even if it comes from a dufus.

And, I think it is perfectly reasonable to have your assets in ETFs and mutual funds while in congress.
 
Vakarian74 said:
Keep defending billionaires and we will continue to see you for what you are.
Click to expand...
You just can't help yourself, can you?

Angry Mood GIF by Lucas and Friends by RV AppStudios
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Polds4OSU
Bill Gates old Idea for a Tax on Automation/AI now seen as possible way to fund Universal Basic Income for those who lose jobs to Robots / AI
Replies
1
Views
109
Donnyboy
Donnyboy
steross
Taxes
Replies
5
Views
299
Big8+4-2-2+2-2+4+4
B
Polds4OSU
Audit: $718 Billion in errors found in Missouri's annual financial report. Annual budget is only $50 Billion
Replies
0
Views
213
Polds4OSU
Polds4OSU
steross
Could Oklahoma eliminate state income tax?
Replies
5
Views
629
Stillwater Townie
S
Polds4OSU
OK Gov Race 2026
Replies
0
Views
90
Polds4OSU
Polds4OSU
Back
Top