1. Just a little nit pick with that site. They seem to keep putting natural gas first when referring to the base-load providers.
    The exact wording (as of 2245 hrs 04/04/2014) is;
    “Natural gas, nuclear, and coal power plants produce 86 percent of the electricity needs of the U.S. These plants can run continuously, and they can be built just about anywhere.”

    I have to wonder why gas was put first there. The data clerk in me likes to keep things in a nice neat alphabetical order, which is what brought this up in my mind. Is it some kind of anti-nuke bias that the site has? I.e. “Nice new natural gas is far better than nasty old nuclear, but crappy old coal is even worse than that.”

    Maybe I’m fretting over nothing, but it is something that irks me.

  2. Green Mountain Power is the distribution utility for 70% of the people in Vermont. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro of Canada.

    The CEO of Green Mountain Power, Mary Powell, recently described the current energy infrastructure as “archaic” and made up of “twigs and twine” that will cost the nation tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.


    Perhaps Powell needs to watch this little video. (I wonder what GMP linemen think of her “twigs and twine” remark.) Do you think she would understand it?

  3. Hate to nitpick… But natural gas is used more in gas turbines than steam systems. And yes I understand about combined cycle, but dismissing the gas turbine part jumped out at me immediately.

  4. “Institute for Energy Research” is a very fancy sounding name but if you look them up in Wikipedia you find this phrase near the top “… praised by Rush Limbaugh.” May not be a good idea to promote this group even if they are pro-nuclear.

  5. Yesterday, the Institute for Energy Research launched a project to help people gain a better understanding of the electric power grid, a marvel of modern society that most people take for granted — unless its product delivery is interrupted for more than a few minutes.

    @Rod Adams.

    I don’t think any of us are that confused what the IER (and it’s political arm American Energy Alliance) are attempting to do? They are a front group for fossil fuels interests and climate denial (here), and have promoted very poor quality research in the past on clean energy and renewables (here and here).

    If they are “helping” people do anything, it’s likely burning a great deal more coal and fossil fuels (and repealing legislation to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of these fuels and promote alternatives).

    I looked at their Mid-Year Energy Overview:


    And nuclear is not mentioned once. Just a one time oversight, or part of a larger trend? If the guns are smoking, I’m not sure why you are smelling roses and offering up yourself, and the real estate on your blog, as cannon fodder?

    1. EL, as it turns out, the Spanish government has accepted what you term “very poor quality research” about their disastrous green energy policies. http://pjmedia.com/blog/leaked-spanish-report-obamas-model-green-economy-a-disaster-pjm-exclusive/2/?repeat=w3tc
      As for intermittent sources, let’s remember James Hansen’s catharsis: The asymmetry finally hit me over the head when a renewable energy advocate told me that the main purpose of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) was to “kill nuclear”. I had naively thought that the purpose was simply to kick-start renewables. Instead, I was told, because utilities were required to accept intermittent renewable energies, nuclear power would become
      less economic, because it works best if it runs flat out.” (p. 11) http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
      Nuclear works and works well, and is being weakened by the renewables you suggest you support.

      1. EL, as it turns out, the Spanish government has accepted what you term “very poor quality research” about their disastrous green energy policies.

        @Daniel Kish

        Pajamas Media strikes again!

        … let’s remember James Hansen’s catharsis …

        James Hansen should learn to think for himself, rather than believe everything he’s told by a “renewable energy advocate” (or a nuclear energy advocate for that matter). They both say pretty silly things from time to time.

        Hansen seems to think we should have a fully regulated marketplace for electricity, and run nuclear on a basis that is not economic or competitive with other resources. If you agree with him that this is the best way to innovate for the future and leverage the power of private capital and the efficiencies of the marketplace to meet our current and future energy and environmental challenges, then maybe he’s correct. Or maybe he just heard what he wanted to hear in his cathartic moment with a renewable energy advocate (and found too easy release, or catharsis, from his doom ridden crisis or predicament).

        1. I don’t presume to know what Hansen “seems to think,” about a regulated marketplace but I know what I think about non-dispatchable energy sources and that is that they do not exist in the absence of mandates and/or payments from the government. That certainly isn’t a free marketplace. Warren Buffett pointed that out when he said windmills “don’t make sense without the tax credit.” http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579541782064848174?mg=reno64-wsj
          Regarding Spain’s experiment with green energy, it is irrefutable that they have rapidly moved away back towards a market, mugged as they were by economic realities.
          Nuclear is a good producer of baseload electricity at scale that Americans can depend upon, unlike the self described “green” sources dependent upon political power for their very existence.

        2. It’s terribly ironic for EL to note that Dr. James Hansen, renowned climate scientist, has (gasp!) dared to break with the anti-nuclear dogma of the environment movement (which appeared to have been only a minor element until well-heeled donors got involved)… and says he “should learn to think for himself“!!!

          Only in Newspeak is sticking to orthodoxy “thinking for one’s self”.

  6. Energy provides everything from economic growth to sustainable civilizations. Basically without energy there is no bulk production of food, employment, transport, education or medical facilities Not just the basics of civilization but all the luxury items as well. Those of us that have energy can’t live without it. A sustainable and affordable energy supply is no longer enough. Nations must also strive to have an independent energy supply. Independent energy supply is when a nation is self sufficient in supplying all of it’s own energy requirements; hence it is not dependent on another country to supply its energy or its energy fuel. http://www.oilandgasrepublic.com

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts