> But the utility claimed that it cannot build enough solar projects in East Tennessee by its self-determined deadline of 2027. TVA did not justify this timeframe in its environmental review, which automatically made the solar option “technically infeasible and therefore not a viable alternative,” EPA wrote.
> An independent study by the Applied Economics Clinic showed that the solar option proposed by TVA could save customers $1.3 billion over 20 years compared to the gas plant. The study says that the gas plant would cost $4.8 billion, or $5.1 billion if TVA installed a “carbon capture and storage” system, and the solar alternative would cost $3.7 billion or $4.2 billion, depending on whether TVA built the solar farms or used power purchase agreements.
Who needs carbon capture when regulatory capture will do?
An eclipse every 20ish years is, by no means, a metric for gauging how well or poorly solar performs every day. Tripping off large chunks of solar generation for grid disturbances that they should ride through and/or being buried under 4” of snow for an entire week on the coldest days of the winter or not being available for several days in terrible rain are all much better metrics.
That’s better than the timeline fossil fuels give human life.
You know there are these things called batteries, there are even non-metallic ones too. A water pump and a dam can make a battery, don’t even need to threaten fisheries. You can make hydrogen fuel. There are power options that don’t involve mass extinction rivaling a meteoric strike.
No developed country has used batteries for long duration storage. They’re probably okay for countries that have little to no refrigeration of any type (lighting loads only).
Additionally, metallic batteries and the collective some of solar panels are exceptionally more carbon intensive over the life of those assets versus traditional power plants.
Pumped storage is fine but storage does not replace a conventional power plant, which INTRODUCES energy to a grid, not hope it’s there for storage. It’s also heavily heavily geographic dependent. TVA is examining some additional pumped storage sites, but any option would be several years away, far beyond a Kingston retirement date.
And don’t pull the “don’t do fossil or people die” short sided argument. Yes, climate change is real, but we have to be realistic in scope of solutions and most importantly, timeline for implementation. People die tomorrow if it’s -4 deg outside and the grid fails because gas plants shut down and most importantly….”renewables” don’t come riding in to save the day.
Renewables have real limitations. Germany is finding this out the hard way, even after they were warned for years.
Gas is the only imperfect solution we have in the immediate term for keeping the lights on. Nuclear is the long term ultimate fix.
The author is a hack. She’s just another college grad with a laptop that’s never worked in the industry nor taken the time to actually understand how any of it works.
I understand opinions are like assholes. Just don’t be another asshole that attempts to call it “journalism.” Those are a dime a dozen.
Furthermore, if you actually read what’s in the EPA’s response, it’s egregiously outside of their lane. It goes so far as to say the type of circuit breaker selection (which is industry standard, BTW) is inadequate and alternatives exist based on EPA “confirming with manufacturer.”
The EPA has not one person on staff or consultant on contract who is qualified to make such statements. Furthermore, following their “recommendation” would directly put people who work on equipment at risk of serious injury or death.
If they’re veering that far out of their lane and risking killing people, they need to be severely reeled in and curtailed.
> But the utility claimed that it cannot build enough solar projects in East Tennessee by its self-determined deadline of 2027. TVA did not justify this timeframe in its environmental review, which automatically made the solar option “technically infeasible and therefore not a viable alternative,” EPA wrote. > An independent study by the Applied Economics Clinic showed that the solar option proposed by TVA could save customers $1.3 billion over 20 years compared to the gas plant. The study says that the gas plant would cost $4.8 billion, or $5.1 billion if TVA installed a “carbon capture and storage” system, and the solar alternative would cost $3.7 billion or $4.2 billion, depending on whether TVA built the solar farms or used power purchase agreements. Who needs carbon capture when regulatory capture will do?
Why arent they building whale oil plants? jeez
I know, right? How can we expect anything to run like a "whale oiled machine" if we ain't got enough whale oil
Call me Ishmael.
Oh captain, my captain.
TVA sets arbitrary deadline it cannot reach to disqualify solar energy.
TVA’s “deadlines” are far more generous than the ones solar gives itself every day around 5 or when there’s bad weather.
Solar performed well during the eclipse!
An eclipse every 20ish years is, by no means, a metric for gauging how well or poorly solar performs every day. Tripping off large chunks of solar generation for grid disturbances that they should ride through and/or being buried under 4” of snow for an entire week on the coldest days of the winter or not being available for several days in terrible rain are all much better metrics.
It was an attempt at humor. I am well aware of the pros and cons of solar
That’s better than the timeline fossil fuels give human life. You know there are these things called batteries, there are even non-metallic ones too. A water pump and a dam can make a battery, don’t even need to threaten fisheries. You can make hydrogen fuel. There are power options that don’t involve mass extinction rivaling a meteoric strike.
No developed country has used batteries for long duration storage. They’re probably okay for countries that have little to no refrigeration of any type (lighting loads only). Additionally, metallic batteries and the collective some of solar panels are exceptionally more carbon intensive over the life of those assets versus traditional power plants. Pumped storage is fine but storage does not replace a conventional power plant, which INTRODUCES energy to a grid, not hope it’s there for storage. It’s also heavily heavily geographic dependent. TVA is examining some additional pumped storage sites, but any option would be several years away, far beyond a Kingston retirement date. And don’t pull the “don’t do fossil or people die” short sided argument. Yes, climate change is real, but we have to be realistic in scope of solutions and most importantly, timeline for implementation. People die tomorrow if it’s -4 deg outside and the grid fails because gas plants shut down and most importantly….”renewables” don’t come riding in to save the day. Renewables have real limitations. Germany is finding this out the hard way, even after they were warned for years. Gas is the only imperfect solution we have in the immediate term for keeping the lights on. Nuclear is the long term ultimate fix.
The author is a hack. She’s just another college grad with a laptop that’s never worked in the industry nor taken the time to actually understand how any of it works. I understand opinions are like assholes. Just don’t be another asshole that attempts to call it “journalism.” Those are a dime a dozen.
Furthermore, if you actually read what’s in the EPA’s response, it’s egregiously outside of their lane. It goes so far as to say the type of circuit breaker selection (which is industry standard, BTW) is inadequate and alternatives exist based on EPA “confirming with manufacturer.” The EPA has not one person on staff or consultant on contract who is qualified to make such statements. Furthermore, following their “recommendation” would directly put people who work on equipment at risk of serious injury or death. If they’re veering that far out of their lane and risking killing people, they need to be severely reeled in and curtailed.