Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
almost like theres no real rhyme/reason behind the decision and its not based on any underlying ideology except for what the president vibes with. almost like potentially generation defining decisions are being made on a whim by people who have no idea what they are doing.
Yes but I’d like to hear a lot more pro-nuclear rhetoric. Hyping up coal is almost too easy for the opposition to laugh at. For good reason.
Just make more reactors.
Not all energy is "energy" - but yes we must allow for market forces in "energy"
Wind and solar have not proven as "efficient" or "clean" as claimed (the production of the turbines and solar cells are very "energy" intensive and there are costs that people ignore)
Nuclear is
Show more
You don’t have to ban them. If you don’t subsidize them, they won’t get built because they’re uneconomical.
All sources of energy have their pros and cons depending on circumstances. Those should be weighed thoughtfully when considering alternatives in any given situation.
I couldn’t agree more, and if he’s making it difficult, he shouldn’t. I have my suspicions that NYTimes incorrectly characterizes “fewer subsidies and favoritism” as a constraint, though.
It’s not banning. It’s creating such harsh environmental regulations that it’s so difficult to build, it’s not economic. Jokes aside? He has never championed banning? just limiting subsidies ? Which order are you referring?
Solar makes a lot of sense.
I have no idea what the appeal of wind is - you're lucky if you break even, no?
Banning wind and solar would indeed be a big mistake.
Yet the story you cite says nothing about banning these energy sources.
Trump hates windmills because opponents of a golf course he built on the coast of Scotland got offshore windmills installed to ugly up the view from his expensive course.
Agree. Just get the government out of it.
Let the market and price system be the place where energy choices are made.
Efficiency + sustainability defined as least carbon_footprint extraction_to_production to salvage_recycle per watt on_the_wire
Yes ?
bit.ly/3CXyRdr cobalts are required, est value_price my call, not cost: $1.6M/unit amortized is $3.65/Mwh +(int & upkeep)/month
Please
Show more
Advocating for different energy sources over others makes perfect sense. Not all energy is the same. Energy is as much about cost as it is about what it produces. Some sources are cheaper and more efficient than others.
Wind is arguably a net loss in terms of energy and cost, and worse when you factor in environmental effects.
He’s not banning it, he’s just not giving Leftist shell corporations federal land and tax dollars. If you want to build a windmill on your land, build a windmill.
Ok, then end all federal subsidies for all energy sources, and roll back the regulatory burdens on nuclear and natural gas like we do for wind and solar.
Don’t pretend it’s a free market only when your favorite player is getting handouts.
“Free market of energy.” How much solar and wind do you imagine would exist in a market without huge subsidies for supply and mandates for consumption?
1) China owns the solar (and to lesser degree wind) supply chain
2) not all energy is created equal in its frequency, voltage, or amperage; solar (and wind) is less consistent and thus harder to incorporate into grid
3) because solar (and wind) is intermittent, relying on it
Show more
Very much agree…I think the overall issue, though, is incentives have primarily focused on wind and solar to the detriment of others, esp nuclear. And wind and solar, absent significant investment, and advancement, in battery infrastructure cannot be effective baseload power.
"Energy is energy."
Imagine being stupid enough to think there are no differences in the means of generating energy.
Hey, why not go back to a wood-burning society?
After all, EnErGy Is EnErGy, DUHHHHH!!!!
It’s not a free market when it takes massive government regulation and thieving of tax money to support it, like wind and solar do
Yes, they should be options like other options for energy, but they’re not the most clean, cost effective, or efficient
Outright banning of solar and wind is too much, but energy isn't quite always energy since solar/wind often don't produce when needed at peak demand. So, for every 1mw of solar/wind you need .5mw of base load capacity that can kick in when needed - nuclear, nat gas, coal, etc.
Show more
Surely you're bright enough to distinguish between government subsidies with taxpayer funds and free market without subsidies. 
I would much rather see all the subsidies removed, all the red tape cut, and let market forces go to work.
Completely agree. Everything should be on the table. And we should keep looking to develop that elusive sustainable, efficient, environmentally friendly, cost effective new source of energy. We have not found it yet. But while the research goes on, everything should be on the
Show more
This is not true. Each firm has trade offs. Those without a strong positive balance should be curtailed. Labeling them as “green” is a hoax, and serves to enrich companies while doing very little for the planet on balance. Why continue this when cleaner, more efficient is avail?
Covering farm land w/ solar panels is ridiculous. Grow food. There’s a place for solar panels, but it’s not on farms.
It's their lack of success without subsidies that makes them a bad idea Alex. They are inefficient virtue signals not legitimate ways to make power. Plus they make us more relent on outside sources we are trying to become energy independent again.
If it were truly a free energy market, there wouldn’t be a solar panel or windmill in the entire country.
Electrons are not the same when considered in a grid context.
Wind and solar are distributed sources that don’t provide consistent load and are open loop (dependent on unreliable inputs). Nuclear is not without faults but it is firm, reliable, and consistent. Apples and oranges.
Nobody's "banning wind and solar". By "stop the country from transitioning to renewable energy", the NYT means, "stop using federal regulations to force the country to transition to renewable energy against its will, at enormous cost".
Major investment in nuclear including SMRs is required. Wind and solar have a place but are disruptive to utility scale grids, have low capacity factor, require replacement every ~20 years and are massively mining intensive to sustain.
Yes but only after we remove undue regulatory burdens that artificially suppress good energy sources like nuclear.
No difference at all between nuclear energy, coal, oil, LNG, hydro, solar, wind, biomass, gerbils running in wheels, and cute girls during jazzercize, according to Alex Tabarrok.
This all stems from him being upset about wind turbines going up near his golf course in Scotland years ago. He seems to have no clue how successful wind has been for states like Texas, and he still seems determined to bring coal back. He suggested this week that we power AI data
Show more
He’s not suggesting a ban, he’s suggesting we don’t heavily prioritize. Current wind and solar are a net-waste - I.e., this is a great fucking idea.
With respect, this fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of solar and wind power. Their intermittent nature makes them inherently destructive to the power grid (which is not...and cannot...be designed to handle variable sources.
Sure, if it’s an actual free market. But it’s not. Without all the subsidies, wind and solar would be prohibitively expensive compared to the amount of energy they provide.
What’s the value proposition of wind and solar if there are no longer government subsidies on these products ?
If they need wind & solar, thay can go to Germany, where electricity is 4 times more expensive.
Not banning - but banning from stupid places to install. Cutting 400 acres of trees for Solar is stupid. Offshore wind is not worth the $. They both have very good uses in limited places - use them there. On roof tops for solar and few uninhabited places on land (CA Delta &
Show more
I’d rather pull all funding from wind and solar and plough all of it into Nuclear for 5 years. Once we have base load funded we can talk about peak
Stop subsidizing/ deprio federally - cool
Ban or add regulatory friction - 
Neither wind nor solar energy will ever produce enough energy to justify the destruction of our land and our seas.
Agreed. That being said wind has a higher warranted nimbyism than any other source sans coal.
Don't ban renewables. But ensure that their full systemic and environmental costs are factored into their prices. Blowing up the windmills will then be a rational private agent response to market signals, if that makes you feel better.
Off shore wind can’t thrive in free market without huge subsidies. Solar can in some parts of the country.
Not even close. Wind is horrible energy, and only good for 24 years. And that's if they are maintained. Not to mention that fiberglass.
Then let these energy sources stand on their own without government subsidies.
Wind & solar receive tax credits that are tradable on a secondary market. They get preferential treatment in day-ahead markets. Huge backlogs of solar and wind interconnections in our queues thanks to these credits. Most of the U.S. is at risk of blackouts for these reasons.
It's NOT a "free market" when wind and solar are heavily subsidized just to survive.
How the hell can a clown like you be a professor of economics?
Some energy is more reliable than others. Thats the issue with wind and solar
Let the free market decide then. Eliminate all the wind and solar subsidies and see how it plays out. Wind and solar will be destroyed and thank god
Cost and resource allocation would seem to argue otherwise. Wind and solar are as inefficient as they are costly. Neither survives without subsidy. While they might have specialty roles to play in unique locations, they have been pushed far beyond their usefulness as a paen to
Show more
Too many subsidies, tax breaks. Let everything compete, but has to be level playing field
Very fair point. Solar’s only real value is in autonomy…the ability to get off grid. It’s otherwise very inefficient and the amount of coal and silica mining required for its production is harmful to the environment. Great for independence, though!
The issue is wind and solar are almost exclusively made by the Chinese while we can make nuclear plants here
Very true. And in the spirit of the free market, let all sink or swim without pink dinosaur arm floats
No, "energy" is NOT "energy". They are not all created equal.
And private actors can still go to town with wind, solar, little guinea pigs on wheels, whatever, if they want. It just won't be done by the government any longer.
Bad actor. Pretending that the least cost effective solutions should be treated the same as the most cost effective.
Also pretending that there was a "ban" as in it's illegal to put up your own wind turbine as opposed to just ban on gov paying for it.
If you are not pro-nuclear then you are not serious about clean, abundant energy.
The difference is wind is optimized to hell and back but still sucks. It's a mature technology (no major breakthroughs left) and isn't viable at scale
Does he want to ban wind and solar, or just defund it?
Relatively speaking, those are not efficient or effective energy sources, and they've mostly been propped up by very powerful, very hysterical (or, cynically, very evil) people influencing governments to prop it up.
The subtle trick here is sneaking in the false premise that renewables compete in a "free market of energy". They don't.
They would all but disappear if not artificially propped up with government subsidies. Industrial solar is just flatly not viable, laughably so.
Except big solar and wind projects destroy the landscape. There are better ways to capture energy than bulldozing pristine areas to build solar
When you look at AI data centers, a lot of the power will not be on the grid. These projects will make great case studies.
Wind turbines are ugly and they flash giant red lights like cell towers at night.
No it is not.
Some are more easily stored and deployed as needed, while others have a time-limited opportunity aspect to them.
Differing ones also require and/or leave a differing footprint
I could see solar having a place in handling peak summer AC loads, but only for marginal loads.
Because they are intermittent, they have no place in base load.
Wind is just too costly for an intermittent power source.
This idea might make sense if for 50+ years (including now) activists didn't fight against nuclear and fossil fuels and government wasn't in the business of funding energy projects.
"Stop the country from transitioning to renewable energy" is not the same as letting them compete without subsidies.
You and the NYT know this, but biased is gonna bias.
Can you point to the EO where he bans solar or wind? Other than the order to withdraw leases for offshore wind which is an environmental and financial disaster.
The anti-solar movement is ostensibly environmental (ie, supposed cadmium getting into soil) but I suspect their actual concerns are mostly aesthetic. Like NIMBYs, they generate lots of conspiracy theories.
100 percent. Energy should come from different sources, including wind, solad,hydro and nuclear.
I'm old enough to remember when "energy independence" was a longed-for goal.
You don’t get the fetishization? This is simple. Republicans like Trump are easily triggered and think anything with “wind” or “solar” is a liberal solution, and thus bad. When you realize they have the reasoning of a 7 year old, it makes sense
Banning wind and solar are not at the forefront meeting our growing demand (eg AI data centers). Look at Germany’s struggles after the NS pipeline was taken offline. Can they make that up with renewables? No.
