Biden Administration stops ANWR development

At first glance I thought that was a lithium mine, then I realized there weren't any poor starving pot bellied kids working down there.
Hard no. Just a random pic grab, but decided to go back and read up on it.

Eagle Butte coal mine not far from Gillette. Declared bankruptcy in 2019 with $500 million in liabilities, $50 million of that was royalties to DOI and $6 million to employees.
 
Eagle Butte coal mine not far from Gillette. Declared bankruptcy in 2019 with $500 million in liabilities, $50 million of that was royalties to DOI and $6 million to employees.
The rest of it they just sort of blew in on meth & coke :ROFLMAO:
 
It just seems like a typical alternative energy solution that ends up being arguably worse than our current methods.
Well, that is a bit of a stretch. If you want to try to make an argument that old wind turbine blades are worse than coal, I will stand off to the side and wish you luck. Nat gas? maybe you have a better foundation to stand on.
 
Well, that is a bit of a stretch. If you want to try to make an argument that old wind turbine blades are worse than coal, I will stand off to the side and wish you luck. Nat gas? maybe you have a better foundation to stand on.
I think politics of it all aside there are some tough questions, for instance what do you do with Scherer?

Solar and wind are just ridiculous ideas, those plants are just too big.

Do you replace them with NG and sink the capital for 40 years?

Do you just leave it and keep WY coal hanging on a bit longer, just wait for technology to come up with something?

Nuclear? We haven’t built one in decades... well unless you count aircraft carriers and subs. Scherer is the size of 3 or 4 Ford class carriers.

🤷‍♂️
 
Well, that is a bit of a stretch. If you want to try to make an argument that old wind turbine blades are worse than coal, I will stand off to the side and wish you luck. Nat gas? maybe you have a better foundation to stand on.
I'm not going to argue it. My point is that we need to look at these alternative "solutions" all the way from beginning to end before we start mass producing and burying them in mass graves. Or we're just doing the same old thing in new and exciting ways. They should've thought about how to recycle them before thousands reached the end of their lifespan. I just find it shameful and hypocritical. Could you bury these in your backyard? No. But somehow it's just sort of ok. Crazy stuff to me, and not the answer we need
 
Last edited:
They should've thought about how to recycle them before thousands reached the end of their lifespan. I just find it shameful and hypocritical. Could you bury these in your backyard?
Do you not see the plastic flying around everywhere? Thinking about consequences is not what we do. When we do we get paralyzed by the information. Remember Paper vs plastic. Cut down trees or make a cheap bag that doesn’t dissolve for a 1000 yrs. decision seemed simple then. This one is even more complicated.

good answers are hard.
 
I think politics of it all aside there are some tough questions, for instance what do you do with Scherer?

Solar and wind are just ridiculous ideas, those plants are just too big.

Do you replace them with NG and sink the capital for 40 years?

Do you just leave it and keep WY coal hanging on a bit longer, just wait for technology to come up with something?

Nuclear? We haven’t built one in decades... well unless you count aircraft carriers and subs. Scherer is the size of 3 or 4 Ford class carriers.

🤷‍♂️
Yeah. Nuclear is a problem because it has a high cost, but low footprint. To make it safe, you have to build in redundant safety measures. And you have to put it far away from people because of NIMBY making linking to the grid more expensive.I just figure eventually SpaceX or somebody will take the waste and fly it into outer space or something.
We like small footprints because we don’t want to hunt under solar panels. Wind will be offshore. So you have ask if that footprint counts or matters. Solar should be decentralized, but that reduces income for states. You can’t charge people for making their own energy, but you can collect a toll on coal used by the local
Utility to produce electricity.
Agree. Nothing about this is easy.
 
We like small footprints because we don’t want to hunt under solar panels.
Believe it or not the deer know that, I have noticed the Roe Deer have taken to feeding under them and sheltering in the rain I kid you not!
And of course, we can't risk a ricochet and damaging the panels.
(Sorry a bit off topic but thought it might be interesting.)
Cheers
Richard
 
Yeah. Nuclear is a problem because it has a high cost, but low footprint. To make it safe, you have to build in redundant safety measures. And you have to put it far away from people because of NIMBY making linking to the grid more expensive.I just figure eventually SpaceX or somebody will take the waste and fly it into outer space or something.
We like small footprints because we don’t want to hunt under solar panels. Wind will be offshore. So you have ask if that footprint counts or matters. Solar should be decentralized, but that reduces income for states. You can’t charge people for making their own energy, but you can collect a toll on coal used by the local
Utility to produce electricity.
Agree. Nothing about this is easy.
Turbines off shore on the gulf coast.... oh yeah greaaaat idea lol

 
If we only had a place to put them. 😁
View attachment 173498

In all seriousness, recycling options are becoming a reality. I heard about the pallets in 2020, but I think there might be opportunities in cement as well. As always, check my work.
This is a damn good idea and one that Wyoming is already working on. It is something that I would very much like to utilize once finalized. These recycled blades pass within a 1/4 mile of a completed pit on I80 that we are in the process of reclaiming.

 
Turbines off shore on the gulf coast.... oh yeah greaaaat idea lol

A problem that needs to be solved for sure. O&G have floating platforms and have been dealing with storms for decades, so it is probably solvable. Most offshore turbines are used in places without hurricanes, like the North Sea. I think the NW, Seattle, Portland, are looked at as prime locations.

There are a lot of ridiculous things going on. For example, O&G companies investing in carbon recapture. So they have one group taking carbon out of the ground and processing it for use, and another group trying to suck it out of the air and put it back in the ground. Seems crazy to me, but if they can make the $$$ work they will do it.
 
A problem that needs to be solved for sure. O&G have floating platforms and have been dealing with storms for decades, so it is probably solvable. Most offshore turbines are used in places without hurricanes, like the North Sea. I think the NW, Seattle, Portland, are looked at as prime locations.

There are a lot of ridiculous things going on. For example, O&G companies investing in carbon recapture. So they have one group taking carbon out of the ground and processing it for use, and another group trying to suck it out of the air and put it back in the ground. Seems crazy to me, but if they can make the $$$ work they will do it.
I’m not an expert, but I think
1. They have to be 91? feet to the platform
2. Drilling is stopped and wells are shut in for storms and rigs are moved out of the path of storms
3. They do get whacked by storms I think Katrina destroyed a hundred or so

Further platforms aren’t generating power... so no transmission lines back to shore.
 
I have a hard time imagining that the numbers work on offshore wind.
It’s an expensive and complicated endeavor to build them next to a major utility’s existing transmission line and then interconnecting to it, let alone out in the ocean.
 
I have a hard time imagining that the numbers work on offshore wind.
It’s an expensive and complicated endeavor to build them next to a major utility’s existing transmission line and then interconnecting to it, let alone out in the ocean.
I think it works to some extent for NYC, Boston, etc but it’s doesn’t work everywhere.

A huge portion of the us population lives within 100 miles of the ocean...
 
I’m not an expert, but I think
1. They have to be 91? feet to the platform
2. Drilling is stopped and wells are shut in for storms and rigs are moved out of the path of storms
3. They do get whacked by storms I think Katrina destroyed a hundred or so

Further platforms aren’t generating power... so no transmission lines back to shore.
4. Oil rigs are designed to allow wind to pass through them. Wind turbines are designed to do just the opposite.
 
I have a hard time imagining that the numbers work on offshore wind.
It’s an expensive and complicated endeavor to build them next to a major utility’s existing transmission line and then interconnecting to it, let alone out in the ocean.
Well, someone should tell the Europeans because they have built and continue to build quite a few of them.
 
I’m not an expert, but I think
1. They have to be 91? feet to the platform
2. Drilling is stopped and wells are shut in for storms and rigs are moved out of the path of storms
3. They do get whacked by storms I think Katrina destroyed a hundred or so

Further platforms aren’t generating power... so no transmission lines back to shore.

Not really related to your points, just some info.
 
I have a hard time imagining that the numbers work on offshore wind.
It’s an expensive and complicated endeavor to build them next to a major utility’s existing transmission line and then interconnecting to it, let alone out in the ocean.
I had a hard time imaging of have a computer in my pocket not that long ago too. That's not meant to be a knock, just that technology is constantly changing and improving and things that "could never happen" do, quite regularly
 
They will sure have to up their output and be paired to storage so that they are capable of distributing energy when it’s needed on the demand curve before it can become a solution to things like providing baseline energy to Boston or New York, or any other major city, or replacing the Mw of the PNW hydro dams.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,158
Messages
1,949,328
Members
35,060
Latest member
htcooke
Back
Top