Wind becomes No 2 power source in US, beating coal and nuclear

[jc456]

No one has ever claimed that wind power or EV were "the ideal solution". You are making up a strawman to argue against since, apparently, you're unable to argue with the real facts.

I call bullshit

 

[jc456]

It fascinates me to see yet another Right Wing Voter who is now demonizing education in general as "grooming" and "brainwashing".

The funny thing, Mike from Texas, your guy Ted Cruz is the product of an elite Ivy League Education. He is EXTREMELY well educated. More than you will ever be.

You are being played by people who know that getting a good solid education will ALWAYS put them in a position to take advantage of people like yourself.

It's HILARIOUS to think how much you are being played. Ted may portray some "aw shucks, I h'ain't no aighed librul!" But he very much is an extremely well educated person.

He wrote an interesting paper in law school that made extensive use of advanced mathematics. Pretty neat stuff.

You are his primary suckers.

Good for you.

How ironic

 

[westwall]

The sad thing is that if I got a patent it was originally filed YEARS ago. westwall doesn't know that the average time between filing and grant (the average time of prosecution in the USPTO) is about 3-5 years now. That means this urgent work was done probably about 6-8 years ago.

I haven't submitted anything new for the last 5 years (I was working in a non-R&D role for a while).

westwall may be a very busy innovator but that doesn't mean everyone works in the same frame as he does. I wonder how many patents he got during his career. Probably quite a few if he was an innovator in R&D space.

No, what's funny is if I had something really good, I would develop it. Get funding if I couldn't boot strap it myself, then flood the market before the Chinese could steal it, and flood the market with cheap knockoffs.

But then, I have actually done it for real.

 

[daveman]

What am I supposed to do about it?



My morality is pretty solid on this. If I'm presented a choice between a technology which might cause some ecological damage and a technology that spews poisons into the air and water every single minute of every single day and causes changes to the climate and pollution, I'm probably going to go with the lesser of two evils.

How about you? What would YOU choose?

Me, I'm not going to insist we stop using the more-polluting source until practical alternatives -- viable, economical, and scalable alternatives -- are available. Otherwise, you're putting people in the cold and dark. And that's not very moral, is it?

 

[daveman]

Total current US wind energy production: 380 billion kWh or 380 trillion watt hours

Dataplate, or actual production?

 

[flacaltenn]

On March 29th for the first time, wind surpassed boat coal and nuclear as a US power source. It has surpassed both individually in the pasts but this was the first occasion for surpassing both. Natural gas remains at No 1.

Wind power overtook coal, nuclear for first time on March 29

Wind power was the No. 2 source for power generation in the U.S. for the first time ever on March 29, surpassing coal and nuclear power, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said Thursd…

thehill.com

AND.... 8 hours later wind took the next 2 days off to rest up. Returning it to the SKETCHIEST form of Grid power position.. 2nd isn't hard to get because coal was already destroyed by #1 source -- nat gas. And we haven't built a single nuke plant in about 45 years but decommissioned about 1/3 of them.

 

[flacaltenn]

The fine is only because they didn't have the permits to kill migratory birds.

I did a thread about that a few days ago.

Windpower Company Fined for Killing Eagles and other Migratory Birds

No, not quite. They were fined for not paying the fees for a license to kill these birds. Yes, that is correct. The windfarm scam says it is okay to kill certain birds as long as the company has a license to kill them. George Orwell, call home. The MBTA prohibits the “taking” of migratory...

www.usmessageboard.com

H0pe you're not saying A PERMIT makes it RIGHT to kill raptures -- even bald eagles...

 

[flacaltenn]

So you are volunteering to keep the Nuclear Waste that stays toxic for 10,000 years next to your house, right?

Better than battery waste from mountains of EVehicles and Grid scale storage facilities to make wind/solar less flaky. HOW LONG DOES THAT remain toxic???

Fucking forever...

It takes 1.2 oz of nuclear fuel to run the standard American home for a year. We CAN handle that. A double A battery size slug of waste. The French do an excellent job of it.

 

[Failzero]

Total current US wind energy production: 380 billion kWh or 380 trillion watt hours

Power consumption of Orange County, California: 19,765,223.22 megawatt hours or 19.765 trillion watt hours.

So, all of Orange County could be ensupported by less than one-nineteenth of the nation's wind energy but 87% of the nations Wind energy is not anywhere near or available to be thrown at Orange County or Southern California which quadruples that energy need in that region

 

[Sunsettommy]

AND.... 8 hours later wind took the next 2 days off to rest up. Returning it to the SKETCHIEST form of Grid power position.. 2nd isn't hard to get because coal was already destroyed by #1 source -- nat gas. And we haven't built a single nuke plant in about 45 years but decommissioned about 1/3 of them.

FINALLY someone figured it out, I pointed out something was being omitted

POST 19

"I am surprised no one has noticed what the article was omitting."

Wind power is too erratic and requires a LOT of land and toxic materials to build.

 

[flacaltenn]

FINALLY someone figured it out, I pointed out something was being omitted

POST 19

"I am surprised no one has noticed what the article was omitting."

Wind power is too erratic and requires a LOT of land and toxic materials to build.

The article says JUST March 29th, a day that the US had 3 major active low pressure storms from coast to coast. But my GUESS IS this milestone was based on more like 4 or 6 hours period.

There are at least 4 other threads from the past in Enviro forum -- where this "trick" was deployed.

With headlines like Texas Reaches 100% Wind on their Grid or "Smalltown USA is 100% wind powered"..

The LIE in latter case is that Smalltown might have GENERATED enough wind to AVERAGE their yearly needs -- but that occurred on just about 21 days of that year for 50% of the yearly amount.

 

[HenryBHough]

The only real solution is population reduction.

Sterilization at birth would be one approach.

Nuclear war would be faster.

Starvation through political manipulation of agriculture is more probable.

If you haven't stocked up by now you MAY be among the first to do their part.
Especially if your a leftie who actuallys the shit you spew.

Damn few of those.....

 

[Sunsettommy]

The article says JUST March 29th, a day that the US had 3 major active low pressure storms from coast to coast. But my GUESS IS this milestone was based on more like 4 or 6 hours period.

There are at least 4 other threads from the past in Enviro forum -- where this "trick" was deployed.

With headlines like Texas Reaches 100% Wind on their Grid or "Smalltown USA is 100% wind powered"..

The LIE in latter case is that Smalltown might have GENERATED enough wind to AVERAGE their yearly needs -- but that occurred on just about 21 days of that year for 50% of the yearly amount.

Normally misleading claims like that is the standard but easy to see it that way on a simple read of the article when you see how little they support the claims in the first place which is what I was referring to in a vague way yesterday and that the chart they referred to in a link actually hurt their misleading cause anyway.

LINK

 

[flacaltenn]

Normally misleading claims like that is the standard but easy to see it that way on a simple read of the article when you see how little they support the claims in the first place which is what I was referring to in a vague way yesterday and that their own chart actually hurt their misleading cause anyway.

View attachment 632262

LINK

You'll NEVER see the media post a lot of ACTUAL daily production on wind or solar. It's not favorable to their lie about them being any kind of "alternative" Grid source. NEITHER wind or solar are used for modulating grid demand.

Here's an example for a PEAK month (MAY) of wind.

This is a well-sited OFFSHORE wind park in Denmark for 12 days in January. It's includes 10 turbines with a RATED output of 480 MWH total. It only approached its rated output on one day. Only exceeded HALF it's output on about 2 or 3 of those days.

 

[Crick]

You'll NEVER see the media post a lot of ACTUAL daily production on wind or solar. It's not favorable to their lie about them being any kind of "alternative" Grid source. NEITHER wind or solar are used for modulating grid demand.

Here's an example for a PEAK month (MAY) of wind. View attachment 632272

This is a well-sited OFFSHORE wind park in Denmark for 12 days in January. It's includes 10 turbines with a RATED output of 480 MWH total. It only approached its rated output on one day. Only exceeded HALF it's output on about 2 or 3 of those days.

The point of the OP was that for the first time, for one day, wind production exceeded that of both coal and nuclear. It was a comment on the growth of alternative power infrastructure in the US. Wind and solar output are obviously always going to vary with conditions and both benefit from large scale storage systems and smart grids. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

You'll NEVER see conservative, anti-science posters like FlaCalTenn here put up data comparing wind, solar and fossil fuel plant fuel consumption and GHG emissions. But then, we never expected they would do so.

 

[skookerasbil]

The point of the OP was that for the first time, for one day, wind production exceeded that of both coal and nuclear. It was a comment on the growth of alternative power infrastructure in the US. Wind and solar output are obviously always going to vary with conditions and both benefit from large scale storage systems and smart grids. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

You'll NEVER see conservative, anti-science posters like FlaCalTenn here put up data comparing wind, solar and fossil fuel plant fuel consumption and GHG emissions. But then, we never expected they would do so.

But it's not a serious topic. In fact, it's laughable. More fodder that the AGW contingent are just not serious people. Let's face it...looks desperate to the average board member. The optics kinda suck.

Akin to me posting up that I am taking bows for trading in my 15mpg car for a 17 mpg car. I mean....c'mon now.

The climate crusaders routinely butcher the optics....for 20 years now. It's why they are not taken seriously by the public.

 

[ReinyDays]

It takes 1.2 oz of nuclear fuel to run the standard American home for a year. We CAN handle that. A double A battery size slug of waste. The French do an excellent job of it.

33 g x (3X10^8 m/s)^2 = 10^15 J ... if per year, then 30,000 kW average ...

Oh wait ... 1.2 oz of fuel produces 1.2 oz of waste ... AA battery sized per home per year ... 100,000,000 is a lot for just the USA ... it's been fifty years so we have 5 billion sitting around already ...

Spend the money and build plants that don't produce waste ... easy peasy ... except for Windscale, all accidents and waste problems come from LWR ... maybe LWR is the problem and not nuclear power ...

BTW ... Westinghouse bankrupted out from underneath their reactor vessel manufacturing department ... we'll have to have the Chinese come in and build our new plants ... [giggle] ...

 

[Crick]

33 g x (3X10^8 m/s)^2 = 10^15 J ... if per year, then 30,000 kW average ...

Oh wait ... 1.2 oz of fuel produces 1.2 oz of waste ... AA battery sized per home per year ... 100,000,000 is a lot for just the USA ... it's been fifty years so we have 5 billion sitting around already ...

Spend the money and build plants that don't produce waste ... easy peasy ... except for Windscale, all accidents and waste problems come from LWR ... maybe LWR is the problem and not nuclear power ...

BTW ... Westinghouse bankrupted out from underneath their reactor vessel manufacturing department ... we'll have to have the Chinese come in and build our new plants ... [giggle] ...

Are you under the impression that e=mc^^2 describes the fuel vs power ratio of a fission power plant?

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh wait ... 1.2 oz of fuel produces 1.2 oz of waste ... AA battery sized per home per year ... 100,000,000 is a lot for just the USA ... it's been fifty years so we have 5 billion sitting around already

You can scale ANYTHING to sound scary. Some of the GWarmers equate the 3 W/m2 at the surface increased forcing to a number of atom bombs worldwide per day/week/month. When it's really less than a couple Christmas tree light bulbs.

I guarantee you each of those households in your "scaling exercise" illegally dispose of 8 oz or more of lithium batteries per year which either cause fires at the dump stations and recycling centers OR sit in landfills with a half life of FOREVER for toxics and heavy metals...

It's VERY doable to get a RELIABLE, virtually emission free grid generator with a 60 yr or more lifespan. Even wind/solar toys last LESS than 25 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

33 g x (3X10^8 m/s)^2 = 10^15 J ... if per year, then 30,000 kW average ...

Oh wait ... 1.2 oz of fuel produces 1.2 oz of waste ... AA battery sized per home per year ... 100,000,000 is a lot for just the USA ... it's been fifty years so we have 5 billion sitting around already ...

Spend the money and build plants that don't produce waste ... easy peasy ... except for Windscale, all accidents and waste problems come from LWR ... maybe LWR is the problem and not nuclear power ...

BTW ... Westinghouse bankrupted out from underneath their reactor vessel manufacturing department ... we'll have to have the Chinese come in and build our new plants ... [giggle] ...

There are about 3 or 5 US companies actively developing 4th gen nuclear reactors. The type that can be BURIED (with a complete backup during replacement at end of life) and virtually forgotten. And instead of 10 ton fuel rods, their "fuel beads/pebbles" are VERY recyclable.

When NuScale goes public -- I'll be camping out in line to become an investor. Their design just got approved by the NRCommission.

Power Companies Turn to Small-Scale Nuclear Reactors - Zenger News

Gone are the soaring, cylindrical cooling towers — new reactors are designed to look appealing.

www.zenger.news

In a bid to revive a slowing industry, several U.S. nuclear power companies are employing a novel idea to invigorate the technology: go smaller.

The concept took a step forward last month when the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the small modular reactor design of Oregon-based NuScale Power, paving the way for wider deployment of the innovative new type of nuclear power. NuScale described its nuclear module as a “safer, smaller, scalable version” of more traditional nuclear reactors. It’s not the end of the regulatory process, but the approval was seen as a major milestone by the nuclear industry.

6 Nuclear Energy Companies Building Molten Salt Reactors

According to the World Nuclear Association, electricity demand almost doubled from 1990 to 2011, and is projected to grow 81% from 2011 to 2035. Nuclear power currently provides for about 11% of the world's electricity, and 21% of electricity in OECD countries. While nuclear power is the most...

www.nanalyze.com