Large Industrial Companies going Off-Grid???

From WIKI on Gates activity post-Microsoft:

Suggesting Gates is "all in" on nuclear power makes no sense.

 

Really? Founding and being chairman of a nuclear power company? When he doesn’t need the money? Including nuclear in the mix of his other energy ventures?

If I started a nuclear power company and chaired the board it would make no sense to say I’m all in on nuclear power? SMH.

Come back to reality dude. And stop lying about my posts. It makes your whole tribe look like a bunch of hucksters.

 

So am I. I'm even more excited by the possibility that the unique Wyoming design proves the safety and production that are desired.

So far, the resistance to nuclear power is its cost.

 

The Wyoming reactor is a demo project.

Your facts don't fit together, as the objectives of those projects aren't the same.

 

The Wyoming project will be a full commercial nuclear power plant. Slated to be powering the grid by 2030. Yes, it’s the first of its kind. Terrapower is also working on a molten salt project in Idaho.

Gates is all in on nuclear power.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bill-gates-pouring-billions-nuclear-power-best-nuclear-stock-buy-now

The facts are the facts. Gates, Microsoft, Open AI, Amazon, Google, etc. ALL understand solar and wind can’t power all the data centers needed to be competitive globally with AI. ALL are investing in nuclear power. That’s my point you can’t seem to grasp. Gates is all in on nuclear because like all these other entities, he understands it’s the ONLY way to meet growing demand for low carbon power generation.

You may not like the facts. But they are facts and all “fit together” because the objectives of ALL these projects is LOW CARBON POWER GENERATION SUFFICIENT TO MEET GROWING DEMAND. Three mile island re-opening. Gate’s Wyoming plant. NextEra's Duane Arnold nuclear plant in Iowa is working on re-opening. Google has contracted for new nuclear power to be delivered from SMR’s by 2030.

If you support nuclear energy this should make sense to you. It’s not complicated and the facts are clear.

 

Solar and wind also have the objective of low cost clean energy.

Today, they are the lowest cost power projects - by a MILE when considering peaker plants. They work especially well together with grid scale battery plants.

I'm not opposed to nuclear power plants, but the don't make sense today. If Gates and friends have a solution that pans out, great!

Texas is making more clean energy than any other state. CA and Iowa are doing well.

 

Right. Microsoft, Google, open AI, Gates, and Amazon are all making huge investments in new nuclear and re-opening shuttered nuclear because nuclear doesn’t make sense.

Wind has a place. As does solar. But they are not capable of providing sufficient energy NOW, let alone for exploding AI and the dream of electrification of transportation and metallurgy. Offshore wind power costs 3 times the retail rates it’s being sold for.

As the percentage of “cheap” clean energy grows, cost to consumers increases. Why? Because LCOE doesn’t account for all costs. Do you know what a busbar is in the context of LCOE? Do you know why it matters? Something isn’t cheaper if it ends up costing the consumer MORE.

You can’t keep telling consumers wind and solar are far cheaper and are becoming a higher percentage of generation while consumers watch their electricity bills skyrocket. Californians are gullible but even some of them will
get skeptical in time….


Look at that cheap clean energy in CA!

 

Hilarious. You're scrambling multiple states, multiple time periods, and multiple objectives of what various entities have as objectives.

You are ignoring the multiple sources of energy

This is like each of your other posts - demonstrating NO analytical capability.

 

LOL. You brought up California doing well with clean energy. I pointed out their already outrageous electricity costs are skyrocketing more as cheap clean energy is added to the mix.

I’ve scrambled nothing. Only pointed out the FACTS you are either unaware of or choose to ignore.

Apparently you are the outcast when it comes to analysis. Gates, Amazon, Google, me and Microsoft come to the obvious conclusion nuclear makes sense. Your analysis was that it doesn’t. So much for your analytical abilities….


Now another demonstration of your lack of awareness. Does this statement lead anyone with an IQ over 75 to believe I’m ignoring multiple sources of energy?

Cool collection of fallacy you post when confronted with facts.

Another fun fact about PG&E is they went bankrupt and pled to felony manslaughter because all that cheap energy didn’t provide them with enough revenue to maintain infrastructure.

 

You didn't source any "facts".

What I pointed out is that building solar/wind is less expensive per gigawatt than building plants based on other fuels.

What Gates is doing isn't producing electricity. I pointed out that he has an idea that he couldn't sell to other corporations. Thus he chose to build a proof of concept.

What Microsoft is doing is resurrecting and existing factory. You can't pretend that is a rule of energy production - it was an opportunity.

I was referring to new starts that have a production record - just like anyone would compare for solar or wind.

If you want to find an analysis, then go find an analysis that insists equal comparison.

Yes - PG&E could not afford to sell electricity at a price that would allow them to meet standards.

 

Nuclear is the lowest cost over term. That has already been posted and documented.

 

Yes. It is a fact Gates, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc. are all investing in nuclear power. Several are investing in new builds including Gates.

The plant Gates is building in Wyoming is a fully commercial unit that will be putting power on the Wyoming grid around 2030.


https://www.geekwire.com/2024/nucle...-be-retired coal power plant in Kemmerer, Wyo.

Not only is Gates building a reactor to produce electricity, it will be a peak 500 MW generating facility that can power 400,000 homes. You simply have no idea what you are taking about. You claim I don’t post facts, but everything I post is factual while what you post is ridiculously factually incorrect. What on earth gives you the idea a nuclear power plant is being built that doesn’t produce electricity?

Why would I need to find an analysis? I already have to point out to you that “cheap” clean power is costing more than existing sources. Can you not answer the question I asked about busbars? The analysis you are married to does not account for all the costs associated with wind farm and solar farm generating facilities. That is why it appears to be cheap to people like you that don’t know what a busbar is in the context of generating and distributing power. That’s why you are fooled into believing a power source is cheaper when in reality the more “cheap” power capacity is built the higher rates go.

It is a FACT California power is an unmitigated DISASTER. Yet somehow you’ve been led to believe it’s some clean power success story. In reality it often has the highest retail rates in the contiguous 48 states. And has brownouts. And can’t supply power sufficient to charge EVs. And can’t maintain lines and ends up killing a bunch of people. And goes bankrupt. These are all FACTS. Yet you claim CA is some clean energy success story. It’s a dumpster fire.

What you post is antithetical to facts. Everything I’ve posted is verifiably factual.

 

`

Gates is essentially attempting to verify his own design. That is not a rational contribution to an analysis of nuclear energy.

Microsoft's attempt to refurbish a preexisting plant is also not a rational contribution to such an analysis of power cost from a new plant.

Measuring price efficiency is not solved by an analysis of number of homes, as that has nothing to do with the cost of the power.

Saying "brownouts" or "EV" doesn't help your analysis, either. (Maybe you would be interested in the places in Australia where people may charge for FREE.)

The transport of electricity disaster in CA had nothing to do with the power being transported. You can read the court cases.

You have no idea what an analysis would look like.

 

What analysis? I’ve never claimed any analysis. I’m too busy correcting your ERRORS.

You falsely claimed Gates project won’t produce electricity. A plant that powers 400,000 homes produces electricity. It’s not an analysis, it’s a fact.

Now you claim it’s Gate’s design. Gates is a software guy. GE Hitachi is the brains behind the Wyoming plant that WILL PRODUCE ELECTRICITY. It’s a fully commercial nuclear power generation facility. I already showed you the testing was done over a 30 year period. This is a commercial power plant.

NOBODY claimed the origin of the electricity being transported had any relevance. What is relevant is the electricity you claim is cheap and is working great in California Is bankrupting the utilities to the point they can’t afford maintenance. Even though they are charging customers the highest rates in the continental US. You said CA was a success. It’s a dumpster fire disaster.

The facts you are going to have to face is the power you believe to be cheap is not. It’s costing the consumer MORE. And you don’t have the technical knowledge to understand why. Nor do you care that it’s more expensive.

This is YOUR analysis.

Nuclear most certainly makes sense. New plants and reopening old plants both make sense because there is no other option. Your opinion that it doesn’t make sense conflicts with the FACT the biggest power users in the world are investing in new and old technology nuclear.

Never mind the federal government is bankrolling a lot of nuclear projects. Must make sense to old Joe and company.

The only analysis that matters is that the largest companies on the planet and most of the largest governments on the planet are investing heavily in nuclear power. Your opinion that nuclear doesn’t make sense is amusing. But irrelevant in the face of facts.

 

This is just more of you being clueless of what an analysis would look like.

You don't even notice that I haven't given you an analysis - yet you think I have. I've only pointed out failures in your thinking.

So, you and others accuse CA of being a dumpster fire. But, you have no evidence of that. Also, other states such as Iowa and Texas show success.

I didn't say that nuclear makes no sense. I stated that your analysis is full of holes.

 

I’ve done no analysis so it can’t be full of holes.

I’ve showed CA rates are skyrocketing. I showed their utilities are bankrupt. I showed their utilities killed people. That is evidence.

There are no failures in my thinking. I’ve simply posted FACTS that conflict with your unsubstantiated opinions.

Yes you did claim nuclear makes no sense. Why lie? It’s public record.

 

I am WELL aware you have done no analysis.

 

Then stop claiming I’ve presented an analysis full of holes. This may come as a surprise, but something that doesn’t exist cannot be full of holes.

I’ve never intended to present an analysis. I’ve simply corrected a plethora of disinformation and misinformation you and others have presented.

You lack knowledge of facts related to the subject. I don’t need any analysis to point out your errors and lack of knowledge. There is no way you could understand ANY analysis yet. You don’t have the background knowledge required. Anyone who believes CA is in any way a success story with clean energy has a LONG road of learning ahead before they are qualified to discuss any analysis.

 

Seriously, you should consider what Trump is proposing for America - not just the damage he plans for agriculture.

 

I’m well aware of damage political parties and politicians can do. Most of the damage has already been done over many decades.

I don’t need advice about agriculture from someone who thinks John Deere record profits in 2023 and over a billion in PROFITS last quarter is indicative of a company in financial difficulty.

 

That's a nonsense attempt at analysis of an industry - one quarter? No understanding of why serious problems arrived? No idea what this means for competitors of Deere? No understanding of seasonality. Total discounting of production?

 

What? I pointed out 2023 saw RECORD profits for JD. I pointed out implement company profits hinge primarily on commodity prices, not actions of Presidents. I pointed out a statistically insignificant amount of product is imported from Mexico so a 100-200% tariff would have almost zero net impact on JD that is a global company.

There are no serious problems for John Deere. That’s just your wild imagination fueled by misinformation from media. You live in a fantasy land completely cut off from reality.

https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...tch believes the firm,linked to those of JDCC.

Give it up dude. Your masters are filling your head full of complete nonsense.

 

Yes, they are looking to where we are headed, like anyone in ag needs to do.

I believe the AG sector knows what they are doing.,

 

List of misinformation, disinformation, and omitted information in your video. I’ll address some of it.

1) Disinformation: US ag exports to China dropping to historic lows.

FACT: ag exports to China 2023 were $33.7B. In 2017 they were $23.8B and had been declining since 2013. In the year 2000 ag exports to China were $3B. In 2010 $20B.

2) Disinformation : The shift to decreasing exports to China began in 2018/2019

FACT: A shift to decreasing ag exports to China began in 2013 and REVERSED with the massive increases when the new trade deal was struck.

3) Misinformation: We need China as destination for ag exports.

FACTS: Twenty years ago we sold almost no ag products to China on a regular basis. John Deere survived. We had more farms than today.

Each year of the last Trump administration saw more agricultural exports than there were in 2016. Every year since the new trade deal was struck with China , ag exports have been 27-48% higher than the year before the Trump administration began.




4) Omitted information: US criticized for tariffing Chinese imports.

FACT: Brazil has tariffs on Chinese imports similar to Trump/Biden tariffs.

5) Omitted information and disinformation: Claims US prices are down but Brazilian prices up. The US is hurting, but Brazil is doing well.

FACTS: Soybean prices hit historic highs in BOTH the US and Brazil in 2022 (with both countries having tariffs on Chinese imports). Since those highs, price has fallen 41% in Brazil and 42% in the US.

Farm bankruptcy rates are down 18% in the US between 2022 and 2023. In Brazil farm bankruptcies are up 535% between 2022 and 2023.

Farm equipment sales (AGCO) have decreased twice as much in South America than in North America.

https://www.farm-equipment.com/articles/22415-agco-reports-net-sales-drop-121-in-q1-2024

The majority of the video is disinformation , misinformation or lies of omission. Most of us in the AG sector know what we are doing. If one has even minimal knowledge of US and global agriculture the video is easily identified as humorous propaganda.

 

That's a remarkable collection of nonsense.

What people were (and are) concerned about is the isolationism and the cost to Americans of Trump's attempts at stirring our economy.

Trump's tariffs aren't aimed at 2022 or 2023 - they are aimed at ag starting with his becoming president.

AGCO shows that South and North America both suffer today.

Take a look at the business confusion caused by Trump's steel tariffs.

What is Trump's objective with these tariffs?