# Iowa Passes Plan to Convert to 100 Percent Renewable Energy



## ScienceRocks (Sep 2, 2016)

*Iowa Passes Plan to Convert to 100 Percent Renewable Energy*

*"We are finalizing plans to begin construction of the 1,000 wind turbines, with completion expected by the end of 2019"*



> The Iowa Utilities Board has given MidAmerican Energy the green light for the utility's plans for a $3.6 billion wind energy investment, the largest renewable energy project in the state.
> The state board on Friday gave final approval for the utility's Wind XI farm.
> The project -- first announced in April -- is part of Des Moines-based MidAmerican's goal to reach 100 percent renewable energy for Iowa customers.
> "We are finalizing plans to begin construction of the 1,000 wind turbines, with completion expected by the end of 2019," MidAmerican spokeswoman Ashton Hockman said in an email Monday. "Wind XI will add up to 2,000 megawatts of wind generation in Iowa and is the largest wind project MidAmerican Energy has ever undertaken."



Wow, what awesome news!


----------



## Grandma (Sep 2, 2016)

I love renewable energy, but I don't know if it's possible.

They're gonna need a shitload of back-up batteries for foggy days with no sun or wind.


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

well 1 USA State getting smart is a start

yeah they sure need a shitload of smart walls, but they can afford it


----------



## Iceweasel (Sep 3, 2016)

Those poor birds. It's a utopian wet dream, what are they smoking out there?


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

if they build the windmills and if 50% of iowans buy a smart wall, i guess it will work

and iowa won t need coal or gas


----------



## Manonthestreet (Sep 3, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Iowa Passes Plan to Convert to 100 Percent Renewable Energy*
> 
> *"We are finalizing plans to begin construction of the 1,000 wind turbines, with completion expected by the end of 2019"*
> 
> ...


Funny that doesnt begin to cover their energy generation


----------



## Manonthestreet (Sep 3, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Those poor birds. It's a utopian wet dream, what are they smoking out there?


Oregon is headed down same dead end


----------



## Iceweasel (Sep 3, 2016)

Western WA has at least two innactive nuclear plants, the libtards shut them down near their completion date. I have heard they were rendered useless. Dumb little idiots.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Sep 3, 2016)

No way they have this done in three yrs......another fairy tale


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

so sad these people arent buying our oil and gas anymore, instead they decide to produce their own electricity, how can we explain its stupid to be selfreliant instead of paying us a lot of money every year ?


----------



## Manonthestreet (Sep 3, 2016)

Power Plants in Iowa - IA  who gets to turn their lights out


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

so sad we goto shutdoewn our coal firing plants because those stupid morons actually manage to make windpower work, goto pay our politicians more so those moron iowans dont go independant


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 12, 2016)

hauke said:


> so sad these people arent buying our oil and gas anymore, instead they decide to produce their own electricity, how can we explain its stupid to be selfreliant instead of paying us a lot of money every year ?


We'll sell them beans to generate that much-needed sustainable wind for wind turbines


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 12, 2016)

hauke said:


> so sad these people arent buying our oil and gas anymore, instead they decide to produce their own electricity, how can we explain its stupid to be selfreliant instead of paying us a lot of money every year ?


We'll sell them beans to generate that much-needed sustainable wind for wind turbines


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 23, 2016)

Grandma said:


> I love renewable energy, but I don't know if it's possible.
> 
> They're gonna need a shitload of back-up batteries for foggy days with no sun or wind.


You are correct. And Oncor, the biggest utility in Texas estimates that the breakeven point for those batteries is $350 kw/hr. Right now, both Tesla and Eos are selling such batteries. Tesla at $250 kw/hr, Eos at $160 kw/hr. Used at both ends of the grid, generation and use. So we are already at the point where we can back up the renewables with storage, making both wind and solar 24/7.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 23, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Western WA has at least two innactive nuclear plants, the libtards shut them down near their completion date. I have heard they were rendered useless. Dumb little idiots.


Damn, you are a stupid fuck. Western Washington is on a subduction zone. Worst possible place In the world for a nuke. Not only that, you need to read the history of WHOOPS. LOL


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Western WA has at least two innactive nuclear plants, the libtards shut them down near their completion date. I have heard they were rendered useless. Dumb little idiots.
> ...


I'm familiar with the lefty spin. But a power plant can designed to shut down for a large earthquake and this isn't the Andreas Fault. The left hates nuclear power because they've been frightened by guys like you.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2016)

Technically this is complete lie. Iowa did not pass a plan to convert to 100% Renewable energy. They did not even discuss this. What did happen, is Washington D.C., our government, is giving one Corporation millions of dollars if it follows the Government plans.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2016)

Iowa passed not such law or plan, the premise is another lie. Why must one lie about renewables? Because everything about renewables is lies.


----------



## Grandma (Oct 24, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Western WA has at least two inactive nuclear plants, the libtards shut them down near their completion date. I have heard they were rendered useless.





Old Rocks said:


> Western Washington is on a subduction zone. Worst possible place In the world for a nuke. Not only that, you need to read the history of WHOOPS.





Iceweasel said:


> ... But a power plant can designed to shut down for a large earthquake and this isn't the Andreas Fault. The left hates nuclear power because they've been frightened by guys like you.



Iceweasel, what you don't get is that the Fukushima disaster could happen here. Many of our nuke joints are of the exact same design, same manufacturer.


----------



## elektra (Oct 24, 2016)

Grandma said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Western WA has at least two inactive nuclear plants, the libtards shut them down near their completion date. I have heard they were rendered useless.
> ...


we shut those GE reactors down when the river levels rise. Further, since Fukushima, all back up power issues have been addressed. It cant happen here. Not now, not ever.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 24, 2016)

Grandma said:


> Iceweasel, what you don't get is that the Fukushima disaster could happen here. Many of our nuke joints are of the exact same design, same manufacturer.


There's a lot of hype and fear mongering with nuclear power. Here's a good flick that has former opponents, environmentalists and activists that have come to their senses.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 24, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Idiot. No, it is not the the San Andreas Fault. That one max's out at about an 8. The Cascade Subduction Zone has a record of quakes up to 9.5. Crap, you silly ass, don't you ever do minimal research?


----------



## Grandma (Oct 25, 2016)

Iceweasel , just so you know, I grew up close to Shippingport. I have no problem with nuke joints - if they're done right.


----------



## elektra (Oct 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Idiot. No, it is not the the San Andreas Fault. That one max's out at about an 8. The Cascade Subduction Zone has a record of quakes up to 9.5. Crap, you silly ass, don't you ever do minimal research?


Big deal, The San Andreas has not seen an 8 in recorded history? The Cascade Subduction Zone does ot have a record of 9.5's? Another lie pulled out of Old Crock's ass, where his head is located. No FAULT of his, ha, ha. Further, nobody builds Nuclear Power Plants on Faults! There is nothing correct in Old Crock's post, as usual.


----------



## elektra (Oct 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Western WA has at least two innactive nuclear plants, the libtards shut them down near their completion date. I have heard they were rendered useless. Dumb little idiots.
> ...


1st, there is no nuclear power plant in Washington called WHOOPS, you are simply an ignorant fool Old Crock. You are thinking of the Washington Oregon Power, I believe the old name used one more "O", I forget for what part of the name. Today it is simply called Columbia Power Generating station. Of course, Trojan operated find on Washington's Western portion of the Columbia river. Today there is still a Nuclear Power plant operating in Eastern Washington, which Old Crock incorrectly called whoops. That plant is very similar to the GE BWR mark I of Fukushima design. It is a GE Mark II BWR. Which do you prefer Old Crock, BWR or PWR?


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 25, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


To be fair to the old coot, when I was very new here I printed bumper stickers "If you liked Star Wars you'll love WHOOPS". I had no clue what it meant, it was a buck. The libs demonized Reagan's missile defense system then associated the nuke plants with it, just like Joseph Goebbels told them to.

The two in western WA are in Kelso and Satsop, just sitting there rendered useless.


----------



## elektra (Oct 25, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> To be fair to the old coot, when I was very new here I printed bumper stickers "If you liked Star Wars you'll love WHOOPS". I had no clue what it meant, it was a buck. The libs demonized Reagan's missile defense system then associated the nuke plants with it, just like Joseph Goebbels told them to.
> 
> The two in western WA are in Kelso and Satsop, just sitting there rendered useless.


I will have to look into those two, my theme for my next thread is nuke related


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) - HistoryLink.org

           The Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) was started in the 1950s as a means to guarantee electric power to homes and industry in the Northwest. Well-meaning officials believed that building nuclear power plants was the best way to supply clean and cheap electricity to customers. Events and human inadequacies produced the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. The system's acronym, pronounced "whoops," came to represent how not to run a public works project. 

WPPSS was organized in 1957 as a municipal corporation that allowed publicly owned utilities to combine resources and build power generation facilities. The entity was authorized by the Washington State Legislature and had the same status as a city or a county. The system was run by directors who were commissioners from the member utilities. Seattle City Light, the largest public utility in the state, signed on with 16 other utilities to insure the availability of electric power in the future. The system's first project was a $10.5 million dam at Packwood Lake . It was completed in 1964, seven months behind schedule.

*Build, Build, Build*

Planners expected that the demand for electricity in the Northwest would double every 10 years, beyond the capacity of hydropower. WPPSS made plans for a nuclear plant at Hanford, called Plant 2, and in 1971 utilities signed up to share costs and benefits. Plant 1, also at Hanford and Plant 3 near Satsop, Grays Harbor County, Washington, were proposed the following year. The costs of all these plants would be repaid through the sale of the power that they produced. WPPSS planned Plant 4 at Hanford and 5 at Satsop which would be "twinned" with 1 and 3. In this way, system planners thought, the experience and resources from the first plants would benefit the twin plants

*Ever consider doing minimal research before you flap your ignorant yap?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot. No, it is not the the San Andreas Fault. That one max's out at about an 8. The Cascade Subduction Zone has a record of quakes up to 9.5. Crap, you silly ass, don't you ever do minimal research?
> ...


*Historic Earthquakes*
* Cascadia Subduction Zone 
1700 01 26 
Magnitude ~9 *
This earthquake, the largest known to have occurred in the "lower 48" United States, rocked Cascadia, a region 600 miles long that includes northern California, Oregon, Washington, and southern British Columbia. The earthquake set off a tsunami that not only struck Cascadia's Pacific coast, but also crossed the Pacific Ocean to Japan, where it damaged coastal villages. Written records of the damage in Japan pinpoint the earthquake to the evening of January 26, 1700.


 The M9 Cascadia Megathrust Earthquake of January 26, 1700
Historic Earthquakes

*Again, minimal research.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2016)

*The Last Cascadia Great Earthquake and Tsunami; 313 Years and Ticking *
*January 24, 2013*
*by Bill Steele*
The Last Cascadia Great Earthquake and Tsunami;
313 Years and Ticking

Thousands of coastal residents settled in for the night on January 26th 1700 when the ground began to shake. For most, the first signs were subtle, dogs barked nervously as the primary or “P” wave vibrations passed by. The earthquake became unmistakable when the “S” (secondary or shear) waves arrived at village after village traveling at about 6 kilometers a second as the entire Cascadia Subduction Zone ruptured. The 1000 km long fault rupture propagated from its origin at about 3 km a second, generating fresh seismic waves as the fault continued to unzip and slip. Assuming the rupture began in Northern California, it likely took over 5 minutes break the entire fault to northern Vancouver Island.

The earthquake that released about 1500 times the seismic energy than the 2001 M 6.8 Nisqually Earthquake, and can be seen as a connected series of large earthquakes at least one of which produced very low frequency waves with 10s of meters of displacement, and a dramatic popping up of the sea floor that lifted a great column of water.
The Last Cascadia Great Earthquake and Tsunami; 313 Years and Ticking  | Pacific Northwest Seismic Network
*Minimal research*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 27, 2016)

Wind only produces on average less than 30% of it's rated capacity

In the UK and Germany they already found this out but I guess we're too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others

FuturePundit: Energy Wind Archives
_
Analysis of UK Wind Generation, is the result of detailed analysis of windfarm output in Scotland over a 26-month period between November 2008 to December 2010 using data from the BMRS (Balancing Mechanism Reporting System). It's the first report of its kind, and drew on data freely available to the public. It challenges five common assertions made regularly by wind industry and the Scottish Government:

*1. 'Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year'*
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
_
So these idiots better be prepared to build 4 times as many wind mills than they have planned


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2016)

*Wind power in the United States* is a branch of the energy industry, that has expanded quickly over the latest several years.[1] As of the end of 2015 the U.S. nameplate generating capacity for wind power was nearly 75,000 megawatts (MW).[2] This capacity is exceeded only by China and the European Union.[3] Thus far, wind power's largest growth in capacity was in 2012, when 11,895 MW of wind power was installed, representing 26.5% of new power capacity. The U.S. wind industry has had an average annual growth of 25.8% over the latest 10 years (beginning of 2005-end of 2014).[1]

For calendar year 2015, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 190.9 terawatt-hours, or 4.67% of all generated electrical energy. Sixteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind power capacity with Michigan just breaking the mark in the 4th quarter of 2013.[4] Texas, with 14,098 MW of capacity, had the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state at the end of 2014, and also had more under construction than any other state currently has installed.[1] The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in the United States with a capacity of 1320 MW.[5] GE Energy is the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer.[6]

Wind power in the United States - Wikipedia

*They, the utilities, are planning to build a lot more wind farms. And, as the grid scale batteries come online, they will supply an even higher percentage of power at a lower cost than fossil fuels or nukes. And you 'Conservatives' will still be mewling and puking about the fact that you can no longer breathe polluted air from coal fired generators.*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Wind power in the United States* is a branch of the energy industry, that has expanded quickly over the latest several years.[1] As of the end of 2015 the U.S. nameplate generating capacity for wind power was nearly 75,000 megawatts (MW).[2] This capacity is exceeded only by China and the European Union.[3] Thus far, wind power's largest growth in capacity was in 2012, when 11,895 MW of wind power was installed, representing 26.5% of new power capacity. The U.S. wind industry has had an average annual growth of 25.8% over the latest 10 years (beginning of 2005-end of 2014).[1]
> 
> For calendar year 2015, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 190.9 terawatt-hours, or 4.67% of all generated electrical energy. Sixteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind power capacity with Michigan just breaking the mark in the 4th quarter of 2013.[4] Texas, with 14,098 MW of capacity, had the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state at the end of 2014, and also had more under construction than any other state currently has installed.[1] The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in the United States with a capacity of 1320 MW.[5] GE Energy is the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer.[6]
> 
> ...


Power capacity and actual output are 2 entirely different things


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 27, 2016)

Grandma said:


> I love renewable energy, but I don't know if it's possible.
> 
> They're gonna need a shitload of back-up batteries for foggy days with no sun or wind.



Then why are energy companies afraid of renewables?


----------



## elektra (Oct 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Ever consider doing minimal research before you flap your ignorant yap?*


I was right, you were wrong, I worked there, you did not, what are you talking about? It is on or on top of Hanford, the Defense departments huge nuclear site. How did your wikipedia copy and paste miss the obvious. So as I said, Old Fool, it was never, WHOOPS.


----------



## elektra (Oct 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Again, minimal research.*


Yes, you did "minimal" research. Nice link, Old Fool, *"Ever consider doing minimal research before you flap your ignorant yap?"

http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/histor/15-19th-eme/1700/1700-en.php


 *


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 28, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > I love renewable energy, but I don't know if it's possible.
> ...



they're not who do you think is building these windmills 
big energy is more than ready to take government subsidies then charge you exorbitant prices 

The question is why would anyone want to build a power system that only provides less than 30% of it's rated output ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Ever consider doing minimal research before you flap your ignorant yap?*
> ...


You dumb fuck, the two plants that were began at Satsop, Washington, are right on top of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. When are you ever going to begin to do minimal research? Perhaps you need some remedial reading courses? Community Colleges offer such, especially for those that cannot score above a grade school score.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Again, minimal research.*
> ...





Structure of the Cascadia subduction zone
The Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) is a 1,000 km (620 mi) long dipping fault that stretches from Northern Vancouver Island to Cape Mendocino in northern California. It separates the Juan de Fuca and North America plates. New Juan de Fuca plate is created offshore along the Juan de Fuca Ridge.[7][8]

The Juan de Fuca plate moves toward, and eventually is shoved beneath, the continent (North American plate). The zone separates the Juan de Fuca Plate, Explorer Plate, Gorda Plate, and North American Plate. Here, the oceanic crust of the Pacific Ocean has been sinking beneath the continent for about 200 million years, and currently does so at a rate of approximately 40 mm/yr.[7][8]

At depths shallower than 30 km (19 mi) or so, the CSZ is locked by friction while strain slowly builds up as the subduction forces act, until the fault's frictional

Cascadia subduction zone - Wikipedia

*Satsop is north and west of Vancouver, about 20 miles east of Aberdeen, Washington.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Grandma said:
> ...


Because that 30% that is produced by the mills is cheaper than the electricity produced by the coal, gas, or nuclear plants.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


not really.  You like to use nominal capacity in your price estimates but in reality since wind actually produces only 25% of its nominal rating the actual price is 4 times higher


----------



## elektra (Oct 29, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> not really.  You like to use nominal capacity in your price estimates but in reality since wind actually produces only 25% of its nominal rating the actual price is 4 times higher


After one year, the power output of a Wind Turbine drops 12%, after one year the power output of a wind turbine drops 12%. After 10 years wind turbines are producing next to nothing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 29, 2016)

elektra said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > not really.  You like to use nominal capacity in your price estimates but in reality since wind actually produces only 25% of its nominal rating the actual price is 4 times higher
> ...


My goodness, Ms. Elektra, what a lying little fuck you are. Please provide links for that stinky 'fact' you just pulled out of your ass.


----------



## elektra (Oct 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness, Ms. Elektra, what a lying little fuck you are. Please provide links for that stinky 'fact' you just pulled out of your ass.


Old Crock, you are claiming that Wind Turbines never deteriorate over time? Please provide links for that stinky 'fact' you just pulled out of your ass.


----------



## elektra (Oct 29, 2016)

Nobody in Iowa like the Wind Turbines, except for those who directly profit. One notable fact about Iowa, Gasoline costs more in Iowa than in the neighboring states, due to Green Energy. That is a fact.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 30, 2016)

And Ms. Elektra posts another 'stinky' fact, with zero links to back up the silly assertation.


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And Ms. Elektra posts another 'stinky' fact, with zero links to back up the silly assertation.


The only thing stinky is Old Crock sitting around scratching his stinky old ass. Everything in this thread is lie, even the title. The only Renewable about Renewable energy is the lies they generate.


----------

