The reality of renewable energy

[Sunsettommy]

Planet of the Humans | By Jeff Gibbs, Executive Producer Michael Moore

This eco-documentary takes a harsh look at how the environmental movement has lost the battle through well-meaning but disastrous choices.

planetofthehumans.com

Really, this is a really dumb post. The silly movie was stupid and wrong then, and is even more wrong now. That movie is a deceptive lie on the whole. Here is the reality, with links to real information. Here is accurate information;

By apparently too hard for you to watch and make a cogent counterpoint to it.

 

[ding]

I've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.

The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.

And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claims

I don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?

Watch the documentary

but here

Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels

Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous

Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.

climatechangedispatch.com

I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.

Not really. That's a lie that they tell you. There is no real time monitoring of the energy production because if there were, everyone could see it was a lie.

Here in carson city the local middle school erected a solar power system to much fanfare.

They even had real time monitoring of the energy created.....for a month. The actual production was so low people, like me, figured out the system would never pay for itself.

The monitoring went away immediately after questions started being asked.

View attachment 509094

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Where Power Comes From - and How it Gets to You

comptroller.texas.gov

A government website?

Yeah that's trustworthy

The source was ERCOT which is NOT a government website.

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219736/ERCOT_Fact_Sheet_6.9.21.pdf

YEah Ok who funds Ercot?

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers -- representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and 710+ generation units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 8 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

About ERCOT

Find out about ERCOT, including its governance model, and find news, jobs, RFPs and contact information.

www.ercot.com

So people who invest in wind farms give money to ERCOT?

That's no different that the American Diabetes Foundation taking money from Hershey

And that has what to do with the fact that 20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind?

Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

ERCOT is the independent system operator for the region which includes ALL types of fuels for electrical generation.

It's lie.

30000Mw of installed capacity is equal to about 7500 MW of actual power.

That's a far cry from 20% of TX overall power generation of 483 million MW in 2019

It's not a lie. It's a fact.

20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind

The numbers don't even come close to adding up. ERCOT can claim 20% all they want.

It's a lie. Just adding 2+2 proves that.

The data can be downloaded from their website. They aren't a government agency. When wind is online it is significantly more than 20%. The average through the year is 20%.

That is reality. Why do you believe there is a conspiracy? What would the purpose be for that?

 

[Old Rocks]

I've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.

The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.

And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claims

I don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?

Watch the documentary

but here

Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels

Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous

Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.

climatechangedispatch.com

I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.

Not really. That's a lie that they tell you. There is no real time monitoring of the energy production because if there were, everyone could see it was a lie.

Here in carson city the local middle school erected a solar power system to much fanfare.

They even had real time monitoring of the energy created.....for a month. The actual production was so low people, like me, figured out the system would never pay for itself.

The monitoring went away immediately after questions started being asked.

View attachment 509094

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Where Power Comes From - and How it Gets to You

comptroller.texas.gov

A government website?

Yeah that's trustworthy

The source was ERCOT which is NOT a government website.

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219736/ERCOT_Fact_Sheet_6.9.21.pdf

YEah Ok who funds Ercot?

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers -- representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and 710+ generation units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 8 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

About ERCOT

Find out about ERCOT, including its governance model, and find news, jobs, RFPs and contact information.

www.ercot.com

So people who invest in wind farms give money to ERCOT?

That's no different that the American Diabetes Foundation taking money from Hershey

And that has what to do with the fact that 20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind?

Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

ERCOT is the independent system operator for the region which includes ALL types of fuels for electrical generation.

It's lie.

30000Mw of installed capacity is equal to about 7500 MW of actual power.

That's a far cry from 20% of TX overall power generation of 483 million MW in 2019

It's not a lie. It's a fact.

20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind

So tell me how does 30000 MW of installed capacity that equals 7500 MW of actual power generated produce 96 million MW ?

View attachment 509352

Wind power in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The numbers don't add up.

30000 MW of installed capacity doesn't produce 96 million MW of electricity anywhere else in the world.

I've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.

The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.

And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claims

I don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?

Watch the documentary

but here

Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels

Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous

Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.

climatechangedispatch.com

I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.

Not really. That's a lie that they tell you. There is no real time monitoring of the energy production because if there were, everyone could see it was a lie.

Here in carson city the local middle school erected a solar power system to much fanfare.

They even had real time monitoring of the energy created.....for a month. The actual production was so low people, like me, figured out the system would never pay for itself.

The monitoring went away immediately after questions started being asked.

View attachment 509094

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Where Power Comes From - and How it Gets to You

comptroller.texas.gov

A government website?

Yeah that's trustworthy

The source was ERCOT which is NOT a government website.

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219736/ERCOT_Fact_Sheet_6.9.21.pdf

YEah Ok who funds Ercot?

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers -- representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and 710+ generation units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 8 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

About ERCOT

Find out about ERCOT, including its governance model, and find news, jobs, RFPs and contact information.

www.ercot.com

So people who invest in wind farms give money to ERCOT?

That's no different that the American Diabetes Foundation taking money from Hershey

And that has what to do with the fact that 20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind?

Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

ERCOT is the independent system operator for the region which includes ALL types of fuels for electrical generation.

It's lie.

30000Mw of installed capacity is equal to about 7500 MW of actual power.

That's a far cry from 20% of TX overall power generation of 483 million MW in 2019

It's not a lie. It's a fact.

20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind

So tell me how does 30000 MW of installed capacity that equals 7500 MW of actual power generated produce 96 million MW ?

View attachment 509353

Wind power in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not buying it.

It's simple. Look at the units. Do you know how to do unit conversions?

If you trust the same people that crashed the grid in TX how many times now?

And what about all the new propane capacity that has to be added

The people in Europe calculated that for every 10 MW of wind capacity installed 8 MW of some fossil fuel generation must be installed to keep the grid stable.

Which is why wind power is a farce

Hold up. Are you giving up on doing the calculation? I just did it. It comes out to an effective run time of 32%.

Do you need for me to show you how to do the math?

Like I said I don't buy it.

I don't trust the data being provided by that inept council that sucks at running a power grid.

If you live there and you trust the people that keep crashing the grid that's all you.

Where ?

How Costa Rica Is Leading the Clean Energy Revolution

More than 99% of Costa Rica’s electricity came from renewables in 2020.

interestingengineering.com

I'm sure four or five 3,000 W electric heaters are fine for the tiny cottage you live in ... but you'll need the 150,000 BTU central heating system for anything larger ... that means natural gas ... or be an American and build some exterior walls ...

What is preventing humans from building bermed or passive solar homes that would eliminate most of the power requirements for heating and cooling?

cost

 

[Sunsettommy]

I wrote: "What is preventing humans from building bermed or passive solar homes that would eliminate most of the power requirements for heating and cooling?"

Old Rocks replied: "Cost"

Nope, since A/C not installed, that alone is a big cost saving.

My uncle had a Berm House built, it was cheaper than conventional homes in Southwest Colorado and power consumption was very low.

I have stood in a passive solar home near Goldendale in mid March in the early 1980's where it had been mostly foggy for several days, it was still warm inside around 70F.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes ... I used the the word "curtail" above as this word has the clear connotation of "using less" ... whereas I also used the word "converse" in this context to mean "cannot be created nor destroyed" ... as in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics; aka the Law of Conservation of Energy ...

So earlier when you mentioned conservation in another post regarding energy "curtailments," you were wrong

In the context of this discussion curtail means to impose a restriction where as conserve means to prevent harmful waste of a resource.

The problem with your argument is what happens to the electrical energy once it's converted from solar energy? ... we're only addressing 200 W of the 1,000 W received ... and that's just the square meter of solar panel ... there's likely another square meter of space between the solar panels ... so this averages out to only 100 W ... assuming the area between solar panels is covered with asphalt or some other black surface ... if it's concrete or desert white sands, then more solar energy is reflected back out into space than is converted to electricity ...

There is no problem in my argument. The problem is people waving their hand at an obvious impact of capturing energy that used to warm the surface of the earth and not properly accounting for that in the energy budget. I say it's because of bias against fossil fuels that solar gets a free pass with zero investigation of the consequences of widespread solar use.

Then what happens to the electrical energy? ... no point in keeping it there at the solar panel ... we run metallic wires to our homes ... and all metals have electrical resistance ... and resistance coverts electrical energy back into radiative energy in the IR band (i.e. heat) ... what are we doing we the electricity in our homes? ... refrigerators and A/C's spew hot air, water heaters are energy whores, what do stoves and ovens do? ... ask your grandparents how hot incandescent light bulbs ran ...

Have you ever done an incremental analysis in your life? If electrical use is in both cases then whatever energy that isn't used for mechanical work (i.e. heat losses due to less than a perfect transfer of energy) cancels out. Then the only incremental difference that exists between the two cases is electric generation form solar reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the earth and whereas electric generation from other sources doesn't.

As your link clearly states ... the net energy change is zero ... solar panels have no impact on average global temperatures ... whatever cooling at the solar farm is offset by heating where the electricity is used ...

Again.. they phoned that in. They waved their arms. They offered no data. AND THEY ARE 100% WRONG for the three reasons I have provided. I am more than happy to wait for this to play out because I know I will be proven correct eventually. It's not that complicated.

Not that I'm a big fan of solar farms ... there are a few places these make economic sense, but for the most part they don't ... I'm advocating the solar installation on top of the typical single family dwelling ... "think globally, act locally" ... here, this localized cooling effect is beneficial ... direct sunlight is what ruins three-tab roofing shingles ... solar panels need replacing every so often, so does your roof ... and every homeowner should be intimately aware of how much re-roofing costs ... I can't even touch a modest roof for less than $15,000 ... and extra $2,000 for new solar panels is nothing ... (re-roofing is a great DIY project, but you gotta gotta follow the directions printed on the shingle packages ... to the letter ... and for God's sake, don't fall) ...

My issue is widespead adoption without the proper analysis. Solar energy will have a cooling effect upon the planet. There is no way around this. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

BPA runs their transmission lines over land where it takes 20 acres to range one cow ... and you'll have to haul water in from 30 miles away everyday or that cow is going to die rather quickly ... the economy of scale starts at 12 sections ... in other words, barren wasteland ... and you're worried about ice sheets in Canada 20,000 years from now? ...

Actually I worry about idiots not factoring in reality. We are in an ice age. We are susceptible to 8C decreases in temperature and we are only 120 ppm away from that inflection point. They are discussing the wrong things.

By the way, do you include seismic refits in the Permian Basin in your cost/benefit calculations on fracking in the region? ... wrapping 1/4" steel around all the load bearing concrete piers everyplace ... didn't think so ...

No. We do life of field compaction studies instead which compare the strain in the rock to the strain in the casing to make sure casing deformation remains less than 5%.

The only seismic issue for frac'ing is around the initial frac pressure. Seismically active regions will have higher frac gradients. If we can frac it without exceeding Pmax we will. Some regions like the Caspian sea are not able to be frac'd without using extraordinary casing and drill pipe weights and are gravel packed instead.

Wrapping a 1/4" steel around all the load bearing concrete piers has nothing to do with frac'ing.

They waved their arms. They offered no data. AND THEY ARE 100% WRONG for the three reasons I have provided.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
Then why did you post it? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

I wrote: "What is preventing humans from building bermed or passive solar homes that would eliminate most of the power requirements for heating and cooling?"
Old Rocks replied: "Cost"
Nope, since A/C not installed, that alone is a big cost saving.
My uncle had a Berm House built, it was cheaper than conventional homes in Southwest Colorado and power consumption was very low.
I have stood in a passive solar home near Goldendale in mid March in the early 1980's where it had been mostly foggy for several days, it was still warm inside around 70F.

Maple trees are a troublesome weed in my flower beds ... transplants easily ... takes five minutes labor ... keeps inside temperatures a full 20ºF cooler than outside in my house ... AND shade trees are carbon negative ... woot ... I should get a brownie-button from the Alarmist yahoos ...

Passive designs cost roughly the same to build new ... retrofitting can be a family activity ... use recycled building materials (if termites aren't problem in your area) ... just throw up winter curtains on the sunny windows on hot days, or a blanket ...

 

[Blues Man]

I've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.

The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.

And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claims

I don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?

Watch the documentary

but here

Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels

Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous

Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.

climatechangedispatch.com

I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.

Not really. That's a lie that they tell you. There is no real time monitoring of the energy production because if there were, everyone could see it was a lie.

Here in carson city the local middle school erected a solar power system to much fanfare.

They even had real time monitoring of the energy created.....for a month. The actual production was so low people, like me, figured out the system would never pay for itself.

The monitoring went away immediately after questions started being asked.

View attachment 509094

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Where Power Comes From - and How it Gets to You

comptroller.texas.gov

A government website?

Yeah that's trustworthy

The source was ERCOT which is NOT a government website.

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219736/ERCOT_Fact_Sheet_6.9.21.pdf

YEah Ok who funds Ercot?

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers -- representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and 710+ generation units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 8 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

About ERCOT

Find out about ERCOT, including its governance model, and find news, jobs, RFPs and contact information.

www.ercot.com

So people who invest in wind farms give money to ERCOT?

That's no different that the American Diabetes Foundation taking money from Hershey

And that has what to do with the fact that 20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind?

Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

ERCOT is the independent system operator for the region which includes ALL types of fuels for electrical generation.

It's lie.

30000Mw of installed capacity is equal to about 7500 MW of actual power.

That's a far cry from 20% of TX overall power generation of 483 million MW in 2019

It's not a lie. It's a fact.

20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind

So tell me how does 30000 MW of installed capacity that equals 7500 MW of actual power generated produce 96 million MW ?

View attachment 509352

Wind power in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The numbers don't add up.

30000 MW of installed capacity doesn't produce 96 million MW of electricity anywhere else in the world.

I've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.

The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.

And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claims

I don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?

Watch the documentary

but here

Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels

Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous

Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.

climatechangedispatch.com

I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.

Not really. That's a lie that they tell you. There is no real time monitoring of the energy production because if there were, everyone could see it was a lie.

Here in carson city the local middle school erected a solar power system to much fanfare.

They even had real time monitoring of the energy created.....for a month. The actual production was so low people, like me, figured out the system would never pay for itself.

The monitoring went away immediately after questions started being asked.

View attachment 509094

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Where Power Comes From - and How it Gets to You

comptroller.texas.gov

A government website?

Yeah that's trustworthy

The source was ERCOT which is NOT a government website.

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/219736/ERCOT_Fact_Sheet_6.9.21.pdf

YEah Ok who funds Ercot?

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers -- representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and 710+ generation units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 8 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

About ERCOT

Find out about ERCOT, including its governance model, and find news, jobs, RFPs and contact information.

www.ercot.com

So people who invest in wind farms give money to ERCOT?

That's no different that the American Diabetes Foundation taking money from Hershey

And that has what to do with the fact that 20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind?

Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

ERCOT is the independent system operator for the region which includes ALL types of fuels for electrical generation.

It's lie.

30000Mw of installed capacity is equal to about 7500 MW of actual power.

That's a far cry from 20% of TX overall power generation of 483 million MW in 2019

It's not a lie. It's a fact.

20% of the generated electricity in Texas comes from wind

So tell me how does 30000 MW of installed capacity that equals 7500 MW of actual power generated produce 96 million MW ?

View attachment 509353

Wind power in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not buying it.

It's simple. Look at the units. Do you know how to do unit conversions?

If you trust the same people that crashed the grid in TX how many times now?

And what about all the new propane capacity that has to be added

The people in Europe calculated that for every 10 MW of wind capacity installed 8 MW of some fossil fuel generation must be installed to keep the grid stable.

Which is why wind power is a farce

Hold up. Are you giving up on doing the calculation? I just did it. It comes out to an effective run time of 32%.

Do you need for me to show you how to do the math?

Like I said I don't buy it.

I don't trust the data being provided by that inept council that sucks at running a power grid.

If you live there and you trust the people that keep crashing the grid that's all you.

Where ?

How Costa Rica Is Leading the Clean Energy Revolution

More than 99% of Costa Rica’s electricity came from renewables in 2020.

interestingengineering.com

Hydro isn't ever going to be a significant percentage of generated power in the US or the rest of the developed world in general. Its's too expensive and is not good for the environment.

The whole point is that what people call renewable is a flat out lie.

Every large solar farm, every wind farm is nothing but a fossil fuel plant at its heart.

A wind farm needs a back up of at least it's maximum output to maintain balance on the grid.

Solar farms have bee a failure as Ivanpah in CA has shown us not to mention that solar farms in deserts destroy the ecosystem.

The next big thing is biomass AKA wood.

Burning wood for electricity has brought back the clear cutting of thousands of square acres not to mention that these biomass plants will also burn wood contaminated with chemicals and will even burn tires and other noxious materials because wood is getting harder to source.

And it just doesn't make sense to use the planets best natural carbon collectors to produce power.

 

[Blues Man]

Planet of the Humans | By Jeff Gibbs, Executive Producer Michael Moore

This eco-documentary takes a harsh look at how the environmental movement has lost the battle through well-meaning but disastrous choices.

planetofthehumans.com

Really, this is a really dumb post. The silly movie was stupid and wrong then, and is even more wrong now. That movie is a deceptive lie on the whole. Here is the reality, with links to real information. Here is accurate information;

You just won't accept the fact that we cannot run the entire country on wind and solar.

And the lie is "renewable" power. Every wind farm is a fossil fuel plant. There is not a place where wind power has actually replaced fossil fuel plants. In fact the reality is more fossil fuel plants are being built because of wind farms. And I won't go into the environmental nightmare that is the mining of rare earths.

Biomass is nothing but clear cutting and deforestation and pollutes the air as much as a coal plant.

There is no magic bullet here. We cannot continue to believe that our current model of unlimited growth will ever be powered by so called renewables.

There is no scenario where wind and solar will ever provide even 20% of power for the entire US without building more fossil fuel power plants and increasing the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

Yes ... I used the the word "curtail" above as this word has the clear connotation of "using less" ... whereas I also used the word "converse" in this context to mean "cannot be created nor destroyed" ... as in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics; aka the Law of Conservation of Energy ...

So earlier when you mentioned conservation in another post regarding energy "curtailments," you were wrong

In the context of this discussion curtail means to impose a restriction where as conserve means to prevent harmful waste of a resource.

The problem with your argument is what happens to the electrical energy once it's converted from solar energy? ... we're only addressing 200 W of the 1,000 W received ... and that's just the square meter of solar panel ... there's likely another square meter of space between the solar panels ... so this averages out to only 100 W ... assuming the area between solar panels is covered with asphalt or some other black surface ... if it's concrete or desert white sands, then more solar energy is reflected back out into space than is converted to electricity ...

There is no problem in my argument. The problem is people waving their hand at an obvious impact of capturing energy that used to warm the surface of the earth and not properly accounting for that in the energy budget. I say it's because of bias against fossil fuels that solar gets a free pass with zero investigation of the consequences of widespread solar use.

Then what happens to the electrical energy? ... no point in keeping it there at the solar panel ... we run metallic wires to our homes ... and all metals have electrical resistance ... and resistance coverts electrical energy back into radiative energy in the IR band (i.e. heat) ... what are we doing we the electricity in our homes? ... refrigerators and A/C's spew hot air, water heaters are energy whores, what do stoves and ovens do? ... ask your grandparents how hot incandescent light bulbs ran ...

Have you ever done an incremental analysis in your life? If electrical use is in both cases then whatever energy that isn't used for mechanical work (i.e. heat losses due to less than a perfect transfer of energy) cancels out. Then the only incremental difference that exists between the two cases is electric generation form solar reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the earth and whereas electric generation from other sources doesn't.

As your link clearly states ... the net energy change is zero ... solar panels have no impact on average global temperatures ... whatever cooling at the solar farm is offset by heating where the electricity is used ...

Again.. they phoned that in. They waved their arms. They offered no data. AND THEY ARE 100% WRONG for the three reasons I have provided. I am more than happy to wait for this to play out because I know I will be proven correct eventually. It's not that complicated.

Not that I'm a big fan of solar farms ... there are a few places these make economic sense, but for the most part they don't ... I'm advocating the solar installation on top of the typical single family dwelling ... "think globally, act locally" ... here, this localized cooling effect is beneficial ... direct sunlight is what ruins three-tab roofing shingles ... solar panels need replacing every so often, so does your roof ... and every homeowner should be intimately aware of how much re-roofing costs ... I can't even touch a modest roof for less than $15,000 ... and extra $2,000 for new solar panels is nothing ... (re-roofing is a great DIY project, but you gotta gotta follow the directions printed on the shingle packages ... to the letter ... and for God's sake, don't fall) ...

My issue is widespead adoption without the proper analysis. Solar energy will have a cooling effect upon the planet. There is no way around this. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

BPA runs their transmission lines over land where it takes 20 acres to range one cow ... and you'll have to haul water in from 30 miles away everyday or that cow is going to die rather quickly ... the economy of scale starts at 12 sections ... in other words, barren wasteland ... and you're worried about ice sheets in Canada 20,000 years from now? ...

Actually I worry about idiots not factoring in reality. We are in an ice age. We are susceptible to 8C decreases in temperature and we are only 120 ppm away from that inflection point. They are discussing the wrong things.

By the way, do you include seismic refits in the Permian Basin in your cost/benefit calculations on fracking in the region? ... wrapping 1/4" steel around all the load bearing concrete piers everyplace ... didn't think so ...

No. We do life of field compaction studies instead which compare the strain in the rock to the strain in the casing to make sure casing deformation remains less than 5%.

The only seismic issue for frac'ing is around the initial frac pressure. Seismically active regions will have higher frac gradients. If we can frac it without exceeding Pmax we will. Some regions like the Caspian sea are not able to be frac'd without using extraordinary casing and drill pipe weights and are gravel packed instead.

Wrapping a 1/4" steel around all the load bearing concrete piers has nothing to do with frac'ing.

They waved their arms. They offered no data. AND THEY ARE 100% WRONG for the three reasons I have provided.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
Then why did you post it? ...

Because they didn't wave their arms and did provide data on the cooling effect solar panels have on the surface of the planet by capturing solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet and converting it instead into electricity.

 

[skookerasbil]

I have still yet to meet a single person from the green contingent that understands "costs" as they relate to renewable energy. Climate crusaders routinely lie about costs.

The costs are prohibitive which is why even after 20 years, solar/wind still accounts for generating far less than 10% of our grid electricity.

How much does wind power really cost?

Only matters who is winning though..........

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes ... I used the the word "curtail" above as this word has the clear connotation of "using less" ... whereas I also used the word "converse" in this context to mean "cannot be created nor destroyed" ... as in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics; aka the Law of Conservation of Energy ...

So earlier when you mentioned conservation in another post regarding energy "curtailments," you were wrong

In the context of this discussion curtail means to impose a restriction where as conserve means to prevent harmful waste of a resource.

The problem with your argument is what happens to the electrical energy once it's converted from solar energy? ... we're only addressing 200 W of the 1,000 W received ... and that's just the square meter of solar panel ... there's likely another square meter of space between the solar panels ... so this averages out to only 100 W ... assuming the area between solar panels is covered with asphalt or some other black surface ... if it's concrete or desert white sands, then more solar energy is reflected back out into space than is converted to electricity ...

There is no problem in my argument. The problem is people waving their hand at an obvious impact of capturing energy that used to warm the surface of the earth and not properly accounting for that in the energy budget. I say it's because of bias against fossil fuels that solar gets a free pass with zero investigation of the consequences of widespread solar use.

Then what happens to the electrical energy? ... no point in keeping it there at the solar panel ... we run metallic wires to our homes ... and all metals have electrical resistance ... and resistance coverts electrical energy back into radiative energy in the IR band (i.e. heat) ... what are we doing we the electricity in our homes? ... refrigerators and A/C's spew hot air, water heaters are energy whores, what do stoves and ovens do? ... ask your grandparents how hot incandescent light bulbs ran ...

Have you ever done an incremental analysis in your life? If electrical use is in both cases then whatever energy that isn't used for mechanical work (i.e. heat losses due to less than a perfect transfer of energy) cancels out. Then the only incremental difference that exists between the two cases is electric generation form solar reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the earth and whereas electric generation from other sources doesn't.

As your link clearly states ... the net energy change is zero ... solar panels have no impact on average global temperatures ... whatever cooling at the solar farm is offset by heating where the electricity is used ...

Again.. they phoned that in. They waved their arms. They offered no data. AND THEY ARE 100% WRONG for the three reasons I have provided. I am more than happy to wait for this to play out because I know I will be proven correct eventually. It's not that complicated.

Not that I'm a big fan of solar farms ... there are a few places these make economic sense, but for the most part they don't ... I'm advocating the solar installation on top of the typical single family dwelling ... "think globally, act locally" ... here, this localized cooling effect is beneficial ... direct sunlight is what ruins three-tab roofing shingles ... solar panels need replacing every so often, so does your roof ... and every homeowner should be intimately aware of how much re-roofing costs ... I can't even touch a modest roof for less than $15,000 ... and extra $2,000 for new solar panels is nothing ... (re-roofing is a great DIY project, but you gotta gotta follow the directions printed on the shingle packages ... to the letter ... and for God's sake, don't fall) ...

My issue is widespead adoption without the proper analysis. Solar energy will have a cooling effect upon the planet. There is no way around this. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

BPA runs their transmission lines over land where it takes 20 acres to range one cow ... and you'll have to haul water in from 30 miles away everyday or that cow is going to die rather quickly ... the economy of scale starts at 12 sections ... in other words, barren wasteland ... and you're worried about ice sheets in Canada 20,000 years from now? ...

Actually I worry about idiots not factoring in reality. We are in an ice age. We are susceptible to 8C decreases in temperature and we are only 120 ppm away from that inflection point. They are discussing the wrong things.

By the way, do you include seismic refits in the Permian Basin in your cost/benefit calculations on fracking in the region? ... wrapping 1/4" steel around all the load bearing concrete piers everyplace ... didn't think so ...

No. We do life of field compaction studies instead which compare the strain in the rock to the strain in the casing to make sure casing deformation remains less than 5%.

The only seismic issue for frac'ing is around the initial frac pressure. Seismically active regions will have higher frac gradients. If we can frac it without exceeding Pmax we will. Some regions like the Caspian sea are not able to be frac'd without using extraordinary casing and drill pipe weights and are gravel packed instead.

Wrapping a 1/4" steel around all the load bearing concrete piers has nothing to do with frac'ing.

They waved their arms. They offered no data. AND THEY ARE 100% WRONG for the three reasons I have provided.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
Then why did you post it? ...

Because they didn't wave their arms and did provide data on the cooling effect solar panels have on the surface of the planet by capturing solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet and converting it instead into electricity.

You don't provide numbers to support your claim either ... you've already agreed that temperatures over solar panels are warmer than the temperatures over mowed grass, yet you persist on claiming solar panels reduce temperatures ... the funny part is you don't seem to know the definition of temperature: for atoms and larger, we define temperature as total kinetic energy, the so-called macroscopic definition ... solar panels that covert solar energy into kinetic energy doesn't lower global temperatures, kinetic energy increases temperatures (by definition) ... you are also very confused about potential energy, that's strictly due to the force of gravity, the electromagnetic force has no roll in that ...

Speaking of numbers ... I give you a 2 metric ton EV, from 0 to 100 km/hr in 100 seconds ... how much kinetic energy have we gained if we drive towards the East, keeping in mind that driving towards the West decreases the EV's kinetic energy ... and what do you think the drop in global temperatures would be while our EV is moving at 100 km/hr? ... assuming we also have brakes, how much of this energy is returned to the environment when we return to hydrostatic equilibrium? ... let's see if you can function in the Newtonian Universe ...

You advocate a more through investigation into solar farms ... but do you advocate more through investigations of fracking, tar sands, pipelines? ...

We like to trivialize this 2ºC temperature increase over 100 years, longer than the typical human lifespan ... West Texas went from recording 15 earthquakes per year in 2010 to almost 5,000 earthquakes per year in 2018 ... we can't trivialize that ...

'Understanding the West Texas Earthquake Problem" -- University of Texas News -- Feb 22nd, 2019 ...

"Questions remain about the causes of the increase in earthquakes, and the interplay between geologic processes and human influences, such as disposal of oilfield waste water by injection, hydraulic stimulation, and other industrial operations."

If this is true (and I'm not saying it is), then we'll need to add the cost of seismic refits to all the buildings in West Texas to the cost/benefit ratio of fracking in that area ...

I appreciate that stress is taken into consideration during the extraction process ... obviously it hasn't for these secondary operations ... we should stop fracking until we've investigated, for exactly the same reasons we should stop building solar farms ... don't you agree? ... who pays for installing anchor bolts in the elderly widow woman's home in Odessa? ... I say the end-user of the natural gas, God forbid we cut corporate dividends ... just plain heartless and mean-spirited to stand there and watch the widow woman's home fall off it's foundation ... that's bad for the building, trust me on that point ...

An interesting sidenote here ... our military already has a sophisticated and advanced seismic network in West Texas ... with more money than UT could imagine ... unfortunately, all that data can't be released to the public, it's all classified ... plus it's fine tuned to the seismic signature of nuclear explosions ... our President knows within an hour when our enemies test their nuclear bombs ... worldwide coverage ...

 

[ding]

You don't provide numbers to support your claim either ... you've already agreed that temperatures over solar panels are warmer than the temperatures over mowed grass, yet you persist on claiming solar panels reduce temperatures ... the funny part is you don't seem to know the definition of temperature: for atoms and larger, we define temperature as total kinetic energy, the so-called macroscopic definition ... solar panels that covert solar energy into kinetic energy doesn't lower global temperatures, kinetic energy increases temperatures (by definition) ... you are also very confused about potential energy, that's strictly due to the force of gravity, the electromagnetic force has no roll in that ...

I don't need to provide numbers to explain to you how incremental analyses are done. It is done through inspection. By comparing the base case to the alternate case. In both cases the same amount of electricity is used. In the base case the electricity is generated by sources that don't cause a reduction of solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet. In the alternate case it does. So that right there informs the need to do an analysis on the climate impact of widespread solar use without considering the idiotic assumption that that energy will ultimately heat the surface of the planet. You want to skip that analysis and suffer predictable surprises. I want to avoid predictable surprises.

 

[ding]

the funny part is you don't seem to know the definition of temperature: for atoms and larger, we define temperature as total kinetic energy, the so-called macroscopic definition ... solar panels that covert solar energy into kinetic energy doesn't lower global temperatures, kinetic energy increases temperatures (by definition) ... you are also very confused about potential energy, that's strictly due to the force of gravity, the electromagnetic force has no roll in that ...

The funny part is that you want to ignore the science and observations which prove that any solar radiation that is converted to electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet.

 

[ding]

Speaking of numbers ... I give you a 2 metric ton EV, from 0 to 100 km/hr in 100 seconds ... how much kinetic energy have we gained if we drive towards the East, keeping in mind that driving towards the West decreases the EV's kinetic energy ... and what do you think the drop in global temperatures would be while our EV is moving at 100 km/hr? ... assuming we also have brakes, how much of this energy is returned to the environment when we return to hydrostatic equilibrium? ... let's see if you can function in the Newtonian Universe ...

1. All other energy sources that are used to generate electricity do not capture solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet. So from a budget standpoint that supposed energy conservation is already added to the system without reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet.

2. Whatever energy you might think is being conserved through the use of electricity will not heat the surface of the planet, and you have yet to demonstrate how it does.

3. Much of the energy that you believe is conserved is being conserved by doing mechanical work (kinetic or potential) and will not heat the surface of the earth and you have yet to demonstrate how it does.

 

[asaratis]

 

[ding]

You advocate a more through investigation into solar farms ... but do you advocate more through investigations of fracking, tar sands, pipelines? ...

Yes, I do advocate a more through investigation into the WIDESPREAD use solar farms. Because through inspection they will result in a cooling effect and the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and colder temperatures.

I absolutely recommend a detailed, methodical and systematic investigation into frac'ing all new basins which do not have a track record for safety. Which is something I have personally done before using monitoring wells and geophones to produce a 3D image of the frac.

I can tell you from personal experience that anything deeper than 3000 ft won't have a problem and anything shallower than 1500 ft will likely have a problem and anything between those depths should be studied to determine if there is a problem.

 

[ding]

We like to trivialize this 2ºC temperature increase over 100 years, longer than the typical human lifespan ... West Texas went from recording 15 earthquakes per year in 2010 to almost 5,000 earthquakes per year in 2018 ... we can't trivialize that ...

'Understanding the West Texas Earthquake Problem" -- University of Texas News -- Feb 22nd, 2019 ...

"Questions remain about the causes of the increase in earthquakes, and the interplay between geologic processes and human influences, such as disposal of oilfield waste water by injection, hydraulic stimulation, and other industrial operations."

If this is true (and I'm not saying it is), then we'll need to add the cost of seismic refits to all the buildings in West Texas to the cost/benefit ratio of fracking in that area ...

Not sure where you are getting a 2C increase over 100 years but I dispute that number. It's more like 0.8C over a thousand years. Why anyone would pick a cold spell during an interglacial cycle as their reference point is beyond me. I can only assume they are being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

As for your concern over West Texas frac practices. I can tell you that in the oil and gas reservoirs which have been producing oil, gas and water for 100 years and have had water injection and CO2 injection for the past 50 years.... those operations are not the problem. There is too much history of no problems there.

So if there is a problem due to frac'ing it is most likely from the new developments of unconventional reservoirs (i.e. shale oi and shale gas) which were the source rocks for the conventional reservoirs because there is no water disposal being done in unconventional reservoirs. None, nada, zip.

With that said, I'm not really seeing a problem here they aren't damaging earthquakes. Here is a map of the frequency of damaging earthquakes.

 

[ding]

I appreciate that stress is taken into consideration during the extraction process ... obviously it hasn't for these secondary operations ... we should stop fracking until we've investigated, for exactly the same reasons we should stop building solar farms ... don't you agree? ... who pays for installing anchor bolts in the elderly widow woman's home in Odessa? ... I say the end-user of the natural gas, God forbid we cut corporate dividends ... just plain heartless and mean-spirited to stand there and watch the widow woman's home fall off it's foundation ... that's bad for the building, trust me on that point ...

Tell you what... you keep posting about that poor old widow woman's windows and I'll keep posting about the cooling effects of solar power. And between the two of us we will save the world.

 

[Blues Man]

View attachment 509892

I think we can eventually stop using fossil fuels and I think we should.

But we need to embrace the only power source capable of providing emission free power 24/7/365 and that is nuclear.

If we put the money w have been pouring into wind and solar into designing and building the next generation of reactors we could actually replace all fossil fuel electric generation in a relatively short time.

If we just replaced existing electric generation we would cut emissions by 30%.

 

[asaratis]

View attachment 509892

I think we can eventually stop using fossil fuels and I think we should.

But we need to embrace the only power source capable of providing emission free power 24/7/365 and that is nuclear.

If we put the money w have been pouring into wind and solar into designing and building the next generation of reactors we could actually replace all fossil fuel electric generation in a relatively short time.

If we just replaced existing electric generation we would cut emissions by 30%.

For production of electric power, huge reductions in the use of fossil fuels can be had if new nuclear plants are built. Those new plants are not required to be nearly as large the current ones we have...just more numerous and spread all across the nation. We already have ships and submarines with nuclear power plants small enough to fit within a city block of a small village.

Fossil fuels are required for a large number of products other than electric of heat energy. Here are a few...