There is Absolutely No Reason for This

You think it's bad now.

Wait until we put 100 million EVs on the grid.

If you have an EV you can't even go out and start the engine to heat up a little...You're forced to rely on a wood stove or fireplace....we're going backwards!

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/02/14/historic-winter-storm-freezes-texas-wind-turbines-hampering-electric-generation/4483230001/

100 million? , try 276 million....

That's right we have to triple electrical output, as we phase out oil, gas, coal and nuclear power plants....Does anybody here believe we can do that in 30 years? Does anybody even believe it's possible?

You could build out enough gas turbines in 20 years to charge that many EVs.

That wasn't the question, the Biden administration plans to go 100% renewable energy by 2050...that means no gas turbines...I have no doubt that we could meet demand with current sources....

Good analysis.

Look at the new generation of modular nuclear reactors, such as the one from Nuscale. They are licensed and approved when they are trucked to the site. The grid is also much simplified by putting the reactor close to where it is needed.

Problem solved.

I agree with nuclear power as I have said many times in the past, but there has always been a pushback about safety and nuclear waste storage which has been a stumbling block....Now are you saying that is no longer the case? What changed? Now although Biden mentions SMR as a component of his energy plan the last I heard the "green new deal" didn't include nuclear in the mix....so I'm assuming we are not all on the same page here...

https://www.rstreet.org/2019/02/21/what-is-the-green-new-deal/?gclid=CjwKCAiAyc2BBhAaEiwA44-wW1NmT1aaIXpRusUNk9OsTm5FzqVNUtpudIb7SUWXpYNw3DuEEheH8RoCysEQAvD_BwE

The pushback on nuclear has been greatly reduced after 20 years of experience with windmills and solar. The nuclear waste issue isn't so important now that the first generation of solar and windmills are coming to the end of their life span and producing huge amounts of waste. The toxic glass from solar collectors and huge fiberglass windmill blades are overwhelming the landfills in many communities. A little nuclear waste is much easier to dispose of.

I am not a Green New Deal expert, but it seems to have a lot of buzzwords and few specifics. I thought that nuclear would fit in there rather nicely - it has no emissions and is renewable.

Your link to RStreet proposes an elegant solution to the problem - let the free market select. If someone wants a particular type of power they can pay for it. I think California has some version of this already

The article in the above link is old and does not mention Biden. Why don't you supply the link to Biden's website?

https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/

Where he does not say 100% renewable by 2050, but says clean energy economy and net-zero emissions. That's a big difference.

Nor is the "Green New Deal" new, the stated goals are still the same even today, drive energy costs up as high as possible, chosen few make as much money as possible, public pays the cost...There is no such thing as clean energy, this is green washing for less efficient, more expensive sources of electric...net-zero emissions is double talk for a carbon trading scheme, which is just another tax on people...tax and spend, tax and spend, new story same as the old...

Yes. And carbon trading is really just transferring the carbon production to another location. It doesn't help the world situation at all.

It makes some people (career politicians) rich...

Newer reactors are still in development. I agree, this needs to move forward and as this article points out, stay, at least, with the technology. Otherwise, we'll lose the knowledge.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-department-energy-rushes-build-advanced-new-nuclear-reactors

We already innovated our way out of this situation, we have been advocating nuclear energy for at least 30 years it's the liberal left that put a stop to it, they got the legislature to pass so many laws, codes, restrictions, and drove the prices through the ceiling, denied permits, fought safe waste storage...We wouldn't be in the situation we are now if the buildout of nuclear power had continued unfettered....It was the so-called environmentalists that are responsible...Now what are you saying all of a sudden the left has decided that nuclear is good? well it's news to me....If you want to blame somebody, blame the ones that are responsible....We did our job...

Last 30 years the Democrats only controlled the majority congress 4 years (1991-93, 2009-11). Republicans had a lot to do with this too. If your claim is that they didn't, then why didn't they change everything to favor nuclear?

You literally waited a year to rebut my comment? Is it because you’re pushing far-right conspiracy theories? For the record, it was the Republicans that pushed the green movement under President Nixon when he championed the creation of the EPA. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was known for his environmentalism over 120 years ago. Three Mile Island a scare tactic? I’m guessing you believe the Earth is flat! Three Mile Island was a near disaster. You’re not the only older person on here. TM1 Took 6 years to get back online. TM2 took 14 years to clean up at a cost of $2 billion (2022 $) but was too damaged so they completely shut it down. TM1 ran until 2019 and shut down because high costs of running it (these were built in the late 1960s). Total clean up and repair cost the US taxpayers about $6 billion in today’s dollars. Then you go on to make Chernobyl and Fukushima sound like a brick had cracked but ignore the fact that radiation leaked. Especially Chernobyl, where it’s radioactive for 20 of miles around it and won’t be habitable by humans for 20k years and cost the Soviets/Russians the equivalent of about $70 billion in today’s dollars and still growing. There are the thousands, maybe millions, of Ukrainians with direct problems caused by the radiation that still affects them today if they’re still alive. Then we have the radioactive cloud covered half of Europe and wound up in the rivers and lake beds. Talk about holding a blind eye to reality! You also failed to mention the Arab oil embargo ended and the cost of oil became cheap, which also led to the reduction of nuclear power plants. Yes, the China Syndrome… but a week later… Three Mile Island! The results of these nuclear reactor failures are improved safety, including processes, sensors, building, containments, reporting, evacuation, etc… etc… etc… Do I really need to go on about Fukushima? Let’s just say this, Fukushima benefitted greatly by improvements in safety, building, evacuation procedures, reporting, etc… All because of places such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. You want a real conspiracy, ask the Republicans why they haven’t tried to stop the green movement? They certainly controlled Congress and the White House at the same time, 8 years under Bush Jr. and 2 Years under Trump. Congress 24 of 28 years. For one, I’ll be betting that part of their answer lies in energy independence and the fact you have Capitalism at work and they’re pro-Capitalists. Your complaint is just you don’t like green energy because you just don’t. That’s your whole argument in a nutshell. You can try to place hurdles all you want, but progress will continue. We can either lead the industry of alternatives or import everything. You’re just not going to stop progress, like it or not.

I'll go with SE! You sound too opinionated. Wind & solar can't produce as much energy as we want. Fast (not thermal) nuclear is what we need. (see, I'm opinionated too!)

Honestly, I can care less of what you think of me. I wasn't targeting you anyway. And I'm not arguing just for wind and solar, which you guys keep hinging on. I've written enough on here, but you focused on this one. All I'm saying is that in the near future, our reliance on fossil fuels will be greatly diminished. There are enough projects across the globe trying to produce new materials that can be recycled, reduce land fill, improve longevity, improve efficiency. This includes nuclear energy, which I never said I was against. SE arguments are for keeping fossil fuels, but the world isn't going to stand still because of what he wants. So, go with SE...

Wow,… I think your due for a promotion… or a least a medal for your brave keyboarding…

Again, you're brave behind your keyboard. Just another ignoramus living in his parents basement.

Your wrong,… again…

Some people are just tired from this site resident criers… what remains is that, he did, in fact, answer you. And now you’re complaining about it?

Yeah and they're tired of keyboard warriors too. And no, he didn't. But, I get it, you don't understand. So, you reside to trying to belittle me from behind a keyboard.

Feel better, Private? Or do you need more tissues?

So, you decided to give another infantile response? You want to be the website's imbecile, have at it!

it’s your level

You need to stop looking backwards and holding yourself back.

And that's why I am looking forward to fast nuclear reactors, which are even more advanced than the thermal nuclear reactors many are familiar with. Many also need to recognize there is no connection with nuclear weapons except they both utilize nuclear energy--totally different technologies.

The wind and solar people brag about doubling their capacity; however, doubling a little bit is still not very much! Society needs a power source with much more capacity than renewable sources; just one reason the terminology must be transitioned from "renewable" to "zero carbon."

Pasted from your earlier post:

..."As president, Biden will lead the world to address the climate emergency and lead through the power of example, by ensuring the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050."...

How do you get "100% renewable energy by 2050" from that without making broad assumptions? How do you KNOW there aren't more technologies planned than renewables?

Read the link I posted, the entire plan is laid out...including a coast to coast high speed rail....I've heard big promises from every politician that has been president, they all promise the sky, and the Moon, but Trump is the only one that delivered...any time a president fails to deliver on promises he made, they always blame congress....I have no doubt that this will continue with a Biden administration...

A majority of Americans didn't think what Trump delivered was what the country needs, hence the lost election. And since a lot of what he did do was without supporting legislation, possibly even illegal, it is likely to be short lived.

And, actually it is always Congresses fault, the president can only execute the laws he is given to work with. If the president fails to deliver on promises it's because congress was not cooperative in delivering legislation supporting them and it is not in the president's power to do anything he wants. It is a failure to deliver but I think in Biden's case it won't be for lack of trying.

Of course congress likes to blame the president for everything it can as well, and it's much easier for them since it's a single person. IMO we put way too much emphasis and power in the presidency when congress controls the purse.

I may yet read the link, I'm interested but there's only so much time in my day.

The congress and the president, also including the state legislatures, ought to quit being democrats and republicans (politicians!) and become Americans when they are elected.

Well said.... same in UK.
Del

The only way t8 do that is to implement term limits where the masses are represented by commoners and not out of touch career politicians.

He does not say renewable energy, he says clean energy. There is a difference. If you want real answers, get them from his website:

https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/

Hello RR.

I finally read (most of) the link SE posted, it is the same one. Lots of clean energy proposals, including carbon capture technology. Very well rounded IMO.

Practically no use of the term "renewable".

Hello JRW,

Which link? SE posted two. One was to Biden's website and the other was to an RStreet discussing the far left's green deal.

In SE's argument, he claims Biden is pushing renewable energy and first offers a link to Biden's website. Then to further his argument, he provides a link to the RStreet article.

In the first link, it does not say he wants 100% renewable energy, but rather wants "Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050." That's a big difference!

In the second link, to prove Biden's agenda, he offers us an article that is 2 years old! However, Biden is not mentioned even once. The other politicians discussed in the article, only said they would support a green new deal, but did not directly support the GREEN NEW DEAL.

In addition, the author of this article, a Republican who was once the commissioner of Montana PSC, is for greener, cleaner energy and increased renewable energy in Montana, a fracking state. He specifically says in this same article;

"The GOP includes a skeptical camp, too. But all too often it traffics in an explicitly anti-clean-energy message, raving about climate science, the shadow flicker of wind farms, and the electromagnetic field of smart meters. The atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has not been higher since the dawn of human civilization than it is today. No debate about the niceties of climate science can eclipse this basic fact. It is prudent to encourage the development of power plants that emit no greenhouse gases, or less of them."

Anyway, no mention that Biden is pushing 100% Renewable Energy as SE claims. Not a well rounded argument. IMHO

I was referring to the Biden Link. I assumed since SE was responding to the post wherein I quoted him that was the only link I needed to respond to. Thanks for asking me to clarify.

There are a lot of links offered in this thread but to me that's the only one that speaks to Biden's plans with authority.

I agree. All the ads I remember have said nothing about the electric power usage, and that you're really transferring the pollution to wherever the generators are (ignoring which one is more efficient.) Is the electric grid in all parts of the country ready for this? Just one of the reasons I think we will have to go to fast nuclear to provide the electricity needs of society. Eliminating combustion processes in order to reduce pollution, implies that we will be using electric heat, either hear pumps or resistance.

The US alone uses 390 million gallons of gasoline daily.

A gallon of gasoline has the equivalent energy density of 33.7 kwh of electrical power.

The typical gas turbine today can provide between 220 and 300 mw of power. They can be put on line in as little as 6 months, but look how many you will need. Not to mention the grid upgrades and the substations that need to be built.

It takes years to get a nuclear plant on line.

See where this nightmare is going to end?

I'm all for "green" but we need to move s l o w l y.

Do you think we are not?

Your estimate is OK to make a valid point on capacity but does not take in to account excess capacity in the current system or how EVs are more efficient than ICVs.

The operators of the electrical grid(s) won't add the kind of capacity you're talking about until they cannot meet the demand. I imagine we'll hear about that in the news before it actually happens, and long before anyone spends a dollar to address it there will be some consequences like widespread rolling blackouts.

We have excess capacity to allow for outages and maintenance, so it's not really excess if it's used to meet peak demand and backup existing generation...Having a backup is just common sense....eliminating it would be foolish...

I'm all for "green" but we need to move s l o w l y.

Wrong in my opinion! At this point, many nuclear plants are first-of-a-kind, which take quite a bit longer. Once the political climate lets us build same-as plants, things will go much faster. Plus, the SMRs are being designed to be buildable in a factory; thus, a lot quicker to get online. Depending on how the total system is designed, infrastructure may not be a problem, because the nuclear plant can replace a coal/gas plant--that is, be the heat source for the existing infrastructure.

Ooops. Another inconvenient truth. Mother Nature doesn't always play nice with your plans.

What!!

Snow in in Texas? Nah.....

But in all seriousness, I have to disagree with your statement "Nuclear energy doesn't care how cold it gets...."

It sure does!

.....Delta T rules!! Tha colda tha betta!

From bad to worse....

https://ktxs.com/news/local/city-of-abilene-2-3-hours-of-water-left-eliminate-all-non-essential-use-immediately

Can it get worse? Yes, in fact it can get much much worse...This could spread and become a regular occurrence....The increasing unreliability of the power grids, and the increasing demand at irregular intervals, is a perfect storm brewing....Demand fluctuation plus grid unreliability = disaster....

https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-ocean/abrupt-climate-change/are-we-on-the-brink-of-a-new-little-ice-age/

https://twitter.com/SPPorg/status/1361381521630838785/photo/1

https://spp.org/about-us/

Have you ever tried to scrape ice off your windshield? Right, now imagine you have 30,000 windshields and the windshields are thin and breakable...and the wind turbine blades can't turn to shed ice...

Sweden's energy mix....

Texas energy mix....

Sometimes the cost saving does not justify the future catastrophic cost that can happen a few years later. The adage, "It will never happen," will happen! IPP's always want the cheapest cost, fastest build to gain profits and pay the interest on the huge loans.

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/cracking-icing-problem-turbine-blades/

Perhaps the US needs to start installing blades with incorporated deicing features.

That wouldn't help....there's no wind

It's a very young country.

However, Vestas has a nice issue with turbines falling over of late in cold weather,

When I worked for an electric power pole manufacturer, most of the utilities wanted Charpy values on their steel; 15 foot-pounds at -20 degrees as I remember. Is Charpy steel what was lacking when the turbine towers were designed?

I don't believe you. I think you actually misspoke. If there were absolutely no reason for something to happen that means it cannot be prevented. We just have to live with the outcome and stop whining.

The actual reason for this is the same as it has always been, money. Spending the money to clean snow off of solar panels and to keep wind turbines spinning as they do in Sweden is just not cost effective in Texas. Similarly, doing all of the power line pathway clearing maintenance done in the Gulf coast states is just not cost effective here on Long Island because we do not get as many severe tropical storms as the Gulf coast states. Isaias comes to the North East and I lose power. I lived through it and I prayed for those who did not. Life moves on.

You really should not complain too much about a small power outage. In S Africa it is common to go without electricity for days on end. From 8am until 8pm and this can be daily, and they have electricity. They simply call it Load shedding and I know of areas that have not had electricity for over a year in their homes but they still get a billing each month. Power outage is even done to a schedule.

https://www.eskom.co.za/Pages/LS_schedules.aspx

Save money, burn down the dog kennel for heat, cooking and hot water. Great to go back to grass roots living. Flintstone living is making a comeback.

WRONG !!! Absolutely ground truth proven wrong. While nuclear reactions don't care about the temperature, nuclear power plants do. The South Texas Nuclear Power Plant, provides about 5% of Texas's electric power, is completely frozen shut down.

No, not really...

..."One of the two reactors of the South Texas Nuclear Power Station in Matagorda County, knocking out about half of its 2,700 megawatts of generating capacity. On Monday, Unit 1 went offline cold weather-related issues in the plant’s feedwater system, said Vicki Rowland, lead of internal communications at STP Nuclear Operating Company.

The feedwater system is a non-nuclear component of the plant, said Rowland. The nuclear side, she said) is safe and secured.”

Unit 2 continues to operate normally, providing more than 1,300 megawatts of electricity, according to Rowland. Crews are working to promptly return Unit 1 to the grid, said Rowland."...

Good luck trying to freeze up a nuclear reactor...haha

https://www.lmtonline.com/business/energy/article/Power-tight-across-Texas-winter-storm-blackouts-15953686.php?utm_campaign=hptexas

Never said to freeze a reactor. The deal is a nuclear POWER PLANT is more, a lot more, then the reactor. While the reactor is the engine; a car with an engine, but no wheels, or transmission or axels or fuel tank or.... is a nothing car.

FYI: I visited South Texas during it's build and the reactor is one of the smallest systems at the plant. The biggest system is the cooling system which includes a 20-acre lake for cooling water. A lake that is not very useful when the pipes freeze.

What is an interesting question is that why would pipes that carry a lot of water, that's being heated by the cooling requirements of a thermal plant freeze in the first place?

I suspect it has a lot to do with the operating license of the plant and the conditions under which it has been certified to operate. It doesn't mean the plant wasn't capable of operating under these conditions, but rather the regulations state that the plant may only operate under a specific set of conditions. I haven't been able to find out exactly why it was shut down. Vague information abounds.

" . . . Unit 1 went offline cold weather-related issues in the plant’s feedwater system, said Vicki Rowland, lead of internal communications at STP Nuclear Operating Company."

I suspect it has something to do with the computer operating system analogues which were programed without regarding the fact Texas gets a ridiculously brutal cold snap once every 25-years.That is, at least for a place that where any location therein can easily have 90* days, often above 100*, 3/4's of the year.

Yes, exactly what I was saying.

The system is only licensed to operate over a set of approved conditions. Any one of those variables goes outside of the envelope, and they are required by law to shut it down until conditions fall back within the acceptable range. And that's the way it should be.

Apparently Reactor #1 license may be different than Reactor #2 license.

If climate change requires an update to the safe operating envelope, then they would need to re-do the license for the new conditions. Like you said, nobody ever thought they would have to operate in such cold conditions in South Texas, even though nuke plants all over the world operate in far colder temperatures. But they were licensed for those cold temperatures.

I suspect that some safety related critical function connected to the downed reactor is not functioning due to the cold or some other thing froze and they can't make enough steam to generate but they were able to prevent that from happening with the working reactor. I don't think anyone here has enough information to know.

Put it more plainly - they are not allowed to operate a nuclear reactor unless all the safety functions are working to spec (as required by the license).

It's all from the same cause. The Texas power grid is not prepared for this weather because the operators don't want to spend the money to do it and there are no regulations requiring them to do what is necessary to provide the essential service under these conditions. This is true even though this is the 3rd occurrence of mass cold weather outages since 1989 and they were advised that they needed to upgrade for colder weather events after the 2nd one (2011?). The source of generation is beside the point.

If the pipes are frozen, then how is one reactor still operating?

I don't think the pipes are frozen. See #25 above. I believe the two reactors have different operating licenses, and #1 fell out of the approved temperature range and was taken off-line. I seriously doubt anything was tripped. The operators shut it down because they are required to do it.

They don't have the option of saying, "Well the outdoor temperature is only two degrees below the limit, so it should be fine, keep on operating the reactor." And that's good. We don't want 'cowboys' running our nuke plants.

I hope I didn't offend any cowboys with that characterization that cowboys might play fast and loose, and take chances, and have a set, and . . . .

That's a 7,000 acre lake...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Stephen: Please explain. I hadn't heard this. Why does it happen?

You have to view wind and solar in the proper context. As power generation, they are pretty much useless and actually a drag on the grid. They are strictly a virtue signal. They make people feel good because they have put a bunch of money(other peoples') into a green power source. We should be reaching a limit soon when the blackouts become more frequent.

Green energy has nothing to do with a poor electrical grid. Texas has problems almost every year in the summer heat. Here in Chicago, we also have temperatures in the 100s in summer, but higher humidity. Winter, on the other hand, much colder and windier. While Texas struggles in -4F weather, we're business as normal at -12F, none of this counting wind chills. We've had around 3 feet of snow within the last two weeks. Same goes with the rest of the north central states, not many issues (yes, you will find some minor ones). Nuclear power wasn't killed by green energy either, it was the cost of and problems with disposing the radioactive waste. Not even Texas wants to store it there. And nuclear energy doesn't stop snapped power lines during the very cold weather, but correct tension does.

The only problem with storing of nuclear waste is the political will to do it...A safe storage site has been carefully chosen, it's just being blocked for political reasons...the state is blackmailing us for more money....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

Yup!

And Harry's not in the picture anymore either.

And the board is made up of political friends of the governor and energy executives. Obviously, they're going to do the cheapest thing possible that wins them the votes.

RR: problems with disposing [of] the radioactive waste

This would be waste from thermal reactors; which, with reprocessing, can be used as fuel in fast reactors. Fast reactors reduce the waste problem by around 100 times, because they can use the other parts of the waste for energy.

They still have waste that needs to get stored somewhere. It's still radioactive and still takes a substantial time to decay. It will certainly help that they are more efficient, but they are not perfect. Would you and your neighborhood feel comfortable if these were store in your town? Usually, when waste or reactors are put nearby, home prices drop. It really doesn't matter how safe it is, it's the perception... who wants to have Godzilla walking on their homes or grow a third leg?

it's the perception

Yes, the perception, and some of those people tend to be very vocal about it. Do you have any suggestions on how to combat that? Fast nuclear is about 100 times better than thermal nuclear, but thermal nuclear is what many people are aware of, thus their resistance.

Good question. I don't think anyone would have a good answer. I did look into fast nuclear, but from what I read it's still in developmental stages and can be finicky per the cooling process. The other issue is it's very expensive to build. If they can continue to improve this technology and reduce the cost, I think it's got real potential. They'd also have to find a way to circumvent the fear factor.

This is driven by the irrational fear of radiation, there are some Texans that don't mind storing nuclear waste, they filed for a license to do so....nobody seems to realize that nuclear waste is already being stored in nearly every state...

You would think that storing this waste underground at the selected Yucca Mountain site would be something everybody would be on board with...They seem to want to keep it close by for some reason...

https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/waste-management-decommissioning/texas-governor-joins-legal-fight-against-2-3-billion-spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-site/

And too many do not realize that the newer reactor designs (Generation IV, using the fast spectrum of neutrons) can use much of that existing waste to produce even more energy for us.

Not so sure - should the PV panels not be cleaned after snow? That is bad planning or inadequate maintenance, albeit in the face of a seemingly rare event. Not sure what the design parameters were. Same for the wind turbine blades icing up - I wonder how other cold countries deal with it. Maybe different designs/materials? And were the problems purely on the generation side (I noted talks of the nuclear plant that also failed in the discussions), or were there transmission/distribution line failures due to wind and/or icing too? But we seem to be getting to a point in some areas where lack of energy storage is becoming problematic.

I recall a very bad snowstorm here about 15 yrs ago, that snapped some powerlines and pylons, as they were not designed for icing, such events being very rare. Parts of the district were without power for a few days. So, the utility will probably do cost-benefit analysis for a failure once in 50-odd years in the local case?

When new nuclear plants can guarantee a build in time and on budget, with the final costs/kWh as stipulated in the original business case, and operate sustainably and profitably, we can maybe talk, but this seems to become more and more unattainable in Western countries.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors

That's still in development and waste is still an issue. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1417/ML14170A133.pdf

I do agree, we need to keep searching for something better or greatly improve upon the older designs.

The "older designs" are still working safely and reliably after 40 years...and I might add that waste is only an issue if we make it one...There is no problem storing nuclear waste at Yucca mountain other than political opposition...It's stored on-site now with no problems, surely moving it to a safer location reduces any perceived risk...

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/OPG-advances-towards-SMR-deployment

Older designs are subsidized and, due to costs, many have shut down. As for storage, my point is that not even Texas wants to store it's own waste in it's state.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/10/nuclear-waste-government-rules/

Everywhere you go, this will be political.

I don't agree with any of that....

Of course you don't agree with that! ::eyes roll:: I live in Texas now. Relocated with my company. You're claim is Texans want nuclear waste. However, their neighbors don't. The Republican party has railed against the WH for wanting to store in Texas. There's plenty of this talk in the news here by the politicians. Personally, I'm for storing it in Florida. Where do you live SolarEagle?

We are already storing it here in Florida, and also in Texas...I think we should reprocess it into fuel for gen iv reactors and burn it up, store the low level stuff, who cares about that....

Solar panels generally heat up when the sun comes out. Since the panels are on an angle, dark and slippery, the snow and ice melts fast and slips off. Solar panel manufacturers generally don't recommend cleaning solar panels on residential homes for several reasons, but they do say that if you feel you must, then use a tool that doesn't damage the panels. Also, solar panels still produce small amounts of electricity with snow build up and are more efficient in cold weather.

Wind turbine blades, in the north, are equipped with heaters. When the sensors detect ice, they stop rotating, heat up, the ice falls off and they start back up.

The Texas grid had less than half of the wind turbines fail, the fossil fuel and nuclear had half or more fail. Less than 10% of energy was from wind at the time the storm hit. In Texas, in the winter when energy usage is at it's lowest, they use the time to take down parts of their systems for maintenance, upgrades and repair. This added to the problem. It was poor planning and trying to save money that created this mess. In response to the energy demand, prices soared for many residents, into the thousands. Texas now has a $51 billion problem!

Can a natural gas line freeze up? Well the gas can't freeze, but the water in the gas line can, and does every year in some lines....It can be prevented by removing the water from the gas lines, which is done in some locations....

..."The best way to prevent freezing is by dehydration, the removal of water from the gas stream. Simply stated, with no water, there is no freezing. One way to remove water is through glycol absorption. As gas passes through the glycol inside a contactor, the glycol meets up with a mixture of water vapor and hydrocarbons."..

Well, your question doesn't place limits, so yes, it can freeze up. Gas-Liquid-Solid (maybe another state or two in there these days). Texas didn't design any of their energy systems, including water delivery, for these cold temperatures. Plus, ERCOT said people usually use much less energy, so they usually take parts of the system down in the winter for maintenance. ERCON also said they were only using 7% of the energy from windmills and solar and that they are not designed for this cold. Here in the Midwest, we have a lot of windmills and solar, they work just fine, but they were designed for it. Our plumbing and gas work fine too, but they are buried well below the frost line. This is Texas, where they try to get around everything for business. Look at how often they have deadly chemical factory or vehicle explosions. It's just cheap engineering, because of politics.

All energy is <...nuclear...>. It is formed in big furnaces called stars. Everything else is just a storage medium.

Anyone might think from the tone of this thread that there was some form of exclusivity, which is not the case. One merely uses the most appropriate source for the job.

Some way of getting the snow off the panels is the proper challenge.

Have you ever seen the Sun shining brightly when it's snowing and freezing rain? You can clean the wind turbines and the solar panels but if you have neither wind nor sunshine, it's not going to help...It works intermittently by design...Installed capacity is not reality, it's a number meant to be divided by three, and that 30% is delivered randomly...Renewable energy in this context is a sometimes available third world solution, to an on-demand 21st century world...it doesn't work!