pipedreams Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Lots of info in the interactive maps. Ever wonder where your electricity comes from? The following map, from Weber State University, shows every significant power plant in the US as of 2016 (click on the image for an interactive version). http://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-every-power-plant-in-the-us/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 That is interesting. I love things like that. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 32 minutes ago, pipedreams said: Lots of info in the interactive maps. Ever wonder where your electricity comes from? The following map, from Weber State University, shows every significant power plant in the US as of 2016 (click on the image for an interactive version). http://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-every-power-plant-in-the-us/ From the article: "...The year 2007 was an approximate turning point for U.S. electricity, when total generation stopped increasing and gas, wind, and solar power began to replace coal...." Conveniently, Nuclear is ignored. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fog Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 2 hours ago, janice6 said: From the article: "...The year 2007 was an approximate turning point for U.S. electricity, when total generation stopped increasing and gas, wind, and solar power began to replace coal...." Conveniently, Nuclear is ignored. Nuclear was represented in all the graphs and breakdowns, how were they ignoring it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Fog said: Nuclear was represented in all the graphs and breakdowns, how were they ignoring it? In the text they referred to the leading fuels but ignored Nuclear! Yes, it was on the graph, prominently so, but ignored in the prominent text I quoted. Edited February 12, 2019 by janice6 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 I was recently looking at Cold War-era maps of potential bomb sites in the U.S. and I was stumped as to what the Russians were thinking based on some of the locations listed. After viewing this power plant map, I can see now that nearly every power plant of decent size was a potential target. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenoF250 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 12 hours ago, janice6 said: In the text they referred to the leading fuels but ignored Nuclear! Yes, it was on the graph, prominently so, but ignored in the prominent text I quoted. It was not ignored, it did not grow during that time so it did not replace coal. Gas was the main increase, then wind, solar got thick enough so you can see it but still irrelevant. This says last reactor was 2016 but 2nd to last was 1996 so there was no real growth in nuclear since 1996. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21 We need more nuke and hydro. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenoF250 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Lots of good stuff on that EIA site. This is interesting: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citra47 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 49 minutes ago, Spork said: I was recently looking at Cold War-era maps of potential bomb sites in the U.S. and I was stumped as to what the Russians were thinking based on some of the locations listed. After viewing this power plant map, I can see now that nearly every power plant of decent size was a potential target. I expect the reverse is true also. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 27 minutes ago, RenoF250 said: It was not ignored, it did not grow during that time so it did not replace coal. Gas was the main increase, then wind, solar got thick enough so you can see it but still irrelevant. This says last reactor was 2016 but 2nd to last was 1996 so there was no real growth in nuclear since 1996. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21 We need more nuke and hydro. I agree that we need more nuclear and hydro. Nuclear has been regulated out of contention. The power industry wanted them but the government forced them to be too costly through regulation. If you look at the graph again you can see an negative slope on all power sources, not just oil, coal and nuclear, but so called green energy sources also. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenoF250 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 48 minutes ago, janice6 said: I agree that we need more nuclear and hydro. Nuclear has been regulated out of contention. The power industry wanted them but the government forced them to be too costly through regulation. If you look at the graph again you can see an negative slope on all power sources, not just oil, coal and nuclear, but so called green energy sources also. Yeah, that is why they say total generation stopped increasing. Not sure why, more efficient homes and lighting I guess. Good friends dad was a nuclear engineer and apparently the nuclear commission kept changing the specs - starts with 2 feet of concrete and 6 inches of steel, start building, wait should be 3 feet of concrete etc. That gets expensive in a hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 2 hours ago, RenoF250 said: Yeah, that is why they say total generation stopped increasing. Not sure why, more efficient homes and lighting I guess. Good friends dad was a nuclear engineer and apparently the nuclear commission kept changing the specs - starts with 2 feet of concrete and 6 inches of steel, start building, wait should be 3 feet of concrete etc. That gets expensive in a hurry. Yes. It has effectively been killed by government regulation, by intent. Coal still produces more radioactive contamination than a Nuclear plant, and Natural gas has recently become cheaper and cleaner to work with, so the conversion from Coal to Natural Gas is one of economy for the power company with decreased costs for the plant operation. However, the increased industrial use of Natural Gas for power generation will eventually raise it's costs to everyone. 4 members of my family are in the Nuclear power generation and management area. One is a consultant for Nuclear plants he is a licensed operator also. the others are on staff or management. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 I always thought it was cool that we have three grids East, west.......and Texas . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 On 2/12/2019 at 11:07 AM, RenoF250 said: Yeah, that is why they say total generation stopped increasing. Not sure why, more efficient homes and lighting I guess. Good friends dad was a nuclear engineer and apparently the nuclear commission kept changing the specs - starts with 2 feet of concrete and 6 inches of steel, start building, wait should be 3 feet of concrete etc. That gets expensive in a hurry. I think some would like to see just how strong a containment vessel is; This is one in the process of being upgraded: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now