58 MPG by 2032

[Torvy]

The problem is that the decline in coal power production is not efficient or effective. Coal is still a very efficient store of power. The only reason coal production has declined is due to regulatory overreach. In contrast, renewable power is only cost effective because it is being propped up by the government. Maybe someday there will be improvements, but there are major problems with these sources that will never make them more than a supplemental source of power. The sun isn't going to shine, nor the wind blow, 24/7.

Nuclear power has come a long way technogically, but fear mongering has kept us from realizing its potential. We are simply putting the proverbial cart before the horse. If environmentalists and regulatory bodies were truly serious, they would be fasttracking nuclear production by lowering the obstructions to new construction and shifting any government assistance toward nuclear. Only AFTER the power production is sufficient should any government consider pushing the use of more and more electric devices. Personally, I'd rather the free market decide. Overall, those who are the most vocal about environmental issues tend to focus on relatively minor contributors and ignore the biggest. The hypocrisy is not helping their cause.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

34% is still natural gas. A fossil fuel. 20% is nuclear. Renewables are a tiny fraction of energy production.

I'm all for nuclear. I am. But are the leftists?

 

[WinterDeere]

The problem is that the decline in coal power production is not efficient or effective. Coal is still a very efficient store of power. The only reason coal production has declined is due to regulatory overreach.

I think there's some truth to this, but on the flip side, we have to look at the true costs associated with coal. There are known and provable health impacts, both on those mining and processing coal, as well as on the general public. Those costs should be included when doing any true cost comparison between coal and other fuel sources, in both directions.

Nuclear power has come a long way technogically, but fear mongering has kept us from realizing its potential. We are simply putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

It's really a historic problem. In a nutshell, it was our Navy who saw the first really good opportunities for deploying nuclear power, just as our government was setting up their first nuclear regulatory commission. So, the first plans submitted and approved for manufacture and use in the USA were plant types that really favored a Naval usage profile. Unfortunately, these plant types are and were never the safest type of system conceptualized for stationary land-based plants, but as the cost of bringing some of these other concepts to maturity and eventual approval was completely beyond any private entity or utility, the Navy's plant types ended up deployed in places like Pennsylvania and Illinois. Because the rest of the world was initially reliant on our nuclear technology and plant manufacture, these plants also ended up all over the world.

There are many other plant concepts, some of which have received continuous R&D over the last 70 years, and a few of which have been built or are currently being built in other countries. Most of these, unlike our own plants, are based on "passive fail safe" concepts.

 

[WinterDeere]

34% is still natural gas. A fossil fuel. 20% is nuclear. Renewables are a tiny fraction of energy production.

Yep, natural gas is going to remain dominant for years to come, at least in the USA. It's too cheap to ignore, but thankfully it's also much cleaner than coal.

Renewables used to be a tiny fraction, but perhaps you haven't seen the latest? They are now at 24%, and are our second-largest energy source, above both coal and nuclear. Current projects under construction or approval guarantees they will pass 30% in 2025, and the forecast is for continued growth beyond that. It will be a very long time before they catch natural gas, but it's clear coal is in its last throws of death.

I'm a free market guy, as well. I'm not a huge fan of regulation, but I do watch the news and read the DOE site. I also have family who have spent their careers in the management side of the utility industry, so I get to hear from them about recent trends at every holiday gathering. It doesn't take a psychic to see wind is on the rise, in a huge way, and utility-scale solar is on its heels. Residential-scale solar is a loser (IMO), that's being propped up by tax dollars, but utility-scale solar has some promise.

 

[Deleted member 371759]

I think there's some truth to this, but on the flip side, we have to look at the true costs associated with coal. There are known and provable health impacts, both on those mining and processing coal, as well as on the general public. Those costs should be included when doing any true cost comparison between coal and other fuel sources, in both directions.

.

The true cost of coal is what lifted a country out of poverty, fed hundreds of millions diets that did not consist of mud cookies, no more freezing to death or sweltering in the summers. Coal lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty and starvation and created the richest middle class the world has ever seen.

 

[WinterDeere]

The true cost of coal is what lifted a country out of poverty, fed hundreds of millions diets that did not consist of mud cookies, no more freezing to death or sweltering in the summers. Coal lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty and starvation and created the richest middle class the world has ever seen.

Definitely. I wasn't implying otherwise. But that's history, and we're talking about today/future.

Would you base the merit of some of today's corrupt labor unions on the legitimately good work they did 100 years ago? I wouldn't.

 

[Deleted member 371759]

Definitely. I wasn't implying otherwise. But that's history, and we're talking about today/future.

Would you base the merit of some of today's corrupt labor unions on the legitimately good work they did 100 years ago? I wouldn't.

Just because something is history does not make it in need of immediate dismantling. I agree advancement is a great thing, but you can't destroy what works until the technology is in place. If you care about poor people I mean really care about them then you will understand the one way to hurt them in the absolute worst and devastating way is to remove access to low cost energy.

 

[WinterDeere]

I can understand your point, and it's a good one. But I'm a hardcore pre-MAGA Republican... so caring for the poor by maintaining anything not benefitting our long-term needs is probably not my strong suit. I'd rather see any such effort go toward creating opportunities for the poor to get better jobs and earn more, than worry about keeping an obsolete tech alive for their sole benefit.

I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, it's just a difference in philosophy.

 

[fatjay]

Nuclear is the future. France is something like 80-90% nuclear. China and india are building massive nuclear plants. The US all but over-regulated nuclear out of existence. We need to bring it back.

 

[Deleted member 371759]

I can understand your point, and it's a good one. But I'm a hardcore pre-MAGA Republican... so caring for the poor by maintaining anything not benefitting our long-term needs is probably not my strong suit. I'd rather see any such effort go toward creating opportunities for the poor to get better jobs and earn more, than worry about keeping an obsolete tech alive for their sole benefit.

I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, it's just a difference in philosophy.

At least you're honest. I dont have a ton of skin in the game so Ill sit back here in the hills and watch.