Bill Gates on 60 Minutes just now.

[progree]

39. By your Mauna Loa criteria, the trillions spent on solar, wind, and nuclear have not even remotely

addressed climate change. As we engage in endless message board back-and-forths, the atmospheric GHG levels are increasing and accelerating despite many decades of wild cheering about all three. That's a fact.

I agree that nuclear would be much more effective at addressing climate change than wind/solar given the nuclear's relative efficiency and resource utilization to build, and reliability over the wind/solar.

I agree that nuclear has been and will be more effective.

I agree that nuclear's contribution has been all-but-stopped by politics and pseudo-economic comparison to the LCOE levelized cost of wind/solar energy that ignores wind/solar's myriad operational shortcomings.

But I have seen nothing that says that adding some wind/solar to a fossil fuel power system doesn't reduce the fossil fuel burning and emissions.

I've heard arguments that adding wind/solar causes fossil fuel generators to generally operate at less efficient operating points, and undergo more shutdown and startup cycles. And yes, that is true. But I've seen nothing that shows that this is overall causing the same or more fossil fuel burning than if the solar/wind wasn't there at all (in which case the fossil fuel generator has to generate the MWh that the solar/wind was).

Backing down a fossil fuel generator from a higher MW output to a lower MW output always results in lower fuel burning, based on every input-output (BTU/hr in, MW out) and incremental heat rate curve I've seen.

As for shutdown/startup cycles, those can and should be simulated too and costed out, and the ones that result in more fuel and O&M should obviously be avoided, by dumping the wind/solar instead.

All in all, I do believe that solar/wind added to a fossil-fuel burning system is resulting in less fossil fuel burning than would occur on that same system without the wind/solar. But I agree that it has been only a tiny reduction compared to global fossil fuel burning and emissions.

In a nuclear moratorium state like Minnesota, and as long as that moratorium exists, I'm unabashedly for more wind/solar and less fossil fuel.

Adding nuclear also results in fossil fuel plants operating at less efficient operating points and also more fossil fuel plant shutdowns and startups. But much fewer of the latter than with wind/solar because of the predictability of nuclear output as compared to wind/solar. And adding nuclear results in overall reduced fossil fuel consumption and emissions, more so than adding wind/solar.

I am not talking about the ability to advertise. Trump had a great deal of influence as well.
Having a big microphone does not make what one says true. The last 4 years have demonstrated this clearly.

I never equated a bigger microphone or more influence with being right or good.

I didn't say that Bill Gates's bigger megaphone and influence made him right. But if you could convince him of your viewpoint, the result would reach a lot more people than endlessly engaging in the endlessly repetitive message board back-and-forth here.

Right now, as we engage in message board polemics, there are several states with nuclear moratoriums. Including California and my state of Minnesota (I thought Minnesota had gotten rid of its moratorium, but found out yesterday apparntly it has not).

Across the U.S., several existing nuclear plants have been shut down, and more are being slated to be shut down, based on what seems to me pseudo-economics with results detrimental to both the environment and actual total costs (post 33 in this thread). A few states, I think five, have provided subsidies to keep the nuclears.

I don't know if there has been serious subsidy talk about our (Minnesota) Prairie Island and Monticello plants ... so far I don't think they are on the chopping block ... it certainly seems that Xcel management fully understands the economic and environmental contribution of these plants ... Nevertheless, I think it could happen some ways down the road. I understand that there was some talk in 2018 about "an additional $1 billion to keep its 45-year-old Prairie Island (1041 MWe) nuclear plant running and at least $420 million for its Monticello (647 MWe) nuclear plant", but haven't found anything since.

I plan on contacting my legislators and at least letting them know what I'm thinking and finding out what I can about the moratorium situation (repealing it has been discussed in the legislature, but I don't know about lately) and the situation with Monticello and Prairie Island, and what organizations are working on it.