Wind and Solar Energy: Good for Nothing

[Glocks4Freedom]

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/wind_and_solar_energy_good_for_nothing.html#ixzz5NtYPC2Lc

 

[XSIV4S]

51 minutes ago, Glocks4Freedom said:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/wind_and_solar_energy_good_for_nothing.html#ixzz5NtYPC2Lc

 

I guess it depends on the State, but the author seemed to single Texas out and that would be a mistake.

Texas is on a closed electric grid system. We don't get power from or share power with any other states. Texas wind production is 5 times that of California and at about 1/2 the cost. In 2017 14.8 percent of the power generated in Texas was from wind power and at off peak times during the winter, hit the 50% mark for the States power production. It has even surpassed the use of coal powered electric plants here in Texas. The plan is for about 35% of the power in Texas to be supplied by wind power over the next couple decades.

[FullClip]

Right now here on the New England grid, wind power is cranking out a whopping 0.3% of the demand despte the wind farming scam in Maine.  You can see real time data in the link below.  For the wind farm and solar developers and proponents sucking at the government mandated teat of tax payer and rate payers, I like to see their homes go black when the wind ain't blowing and it's cloudy.

https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/charts

[Glocks4Freedom]

10 minutes ago, XSIV4S said:

I guess it depends on the State, but the author seemed to single Texas out and that would be a mistake.

Texas is on a closed electric grid system. We don't get power from or share power with any other states. Texas wind production is 5 times that of California and at about 1/2 the cost. In 2017 14.8 percent of the power generated in Texas was from wind power and at off peak times during the winter, hit the 50% mark for the States power production. It has even surpassed the use of coal powered electric plants here in Texas. The plan is for about 35% of the power in Texas to be supplied by wind power over the next couple decades.

I'd say, let's burn the fossil fuels first - of which, there's a lot left, and it's far more efficient. And then, we'll worry about windy-shitty farms. 

[jmohme]

1 hour ago, Glocks4Freedom said:

I'd say, let's burn the fossil fuels first - of which, there's a lot left, and it's far more efficient. And then, we'll worry about windy-shitty farms. 

By implimenting  wind turbines now while still relying on current means of generating power, wind turbine technology will continue to be refined and will most certainly evolve into a more effective form for a time when we are forced to impliment alternative methods of power generation.

Edited August 12, 2018 by jmohme

[XSIV4S]

1 minute ago, jmohme said:

Byimplimenting wind turbines now while still relying on current means of generating power, wind turbine technology will continue to be refined and will most certainly evolve into a more effective form for a time when we are forced to impliment alternative methods of power generation.

+1 WOW, That's a lot prettier than how I was going to say it. Every year they will drill deeper and find new methods to extract oil trapped in rock and shale and every year it will get more expensive to retrieve. In the not too distant future we will reach a tipping point where wind energy just makes more sense and be more cost effective in areas where it makes sense. I have traveled all over Texas many times and the areas they place these in are typically very remote and on the edges of long hill lines, Mesa's and the edges of valleys.

 

[minderasr]

I'm no tree hugger, far from it.  But what about the wind turbines and solar panels killing birds?

[pipedreams]

Wind has it's place in geographic locations where there is sufficient wind to make the profitable.  Same with solar, where there are sufficient number of sunny day for it to pay off.  Just putting it because you can get a government tax credit doesn't cut it.  More than once I have seen wind turbines installed and a couple years later the blades have been removed and not replaced.

"Wind provided 37% of Iowa’s total electricity generation in 2017, a larger share than in any other state. Wind was second only to coal as an energy source for electricity generation in the state."

Now ethanol, that's another story!

"Iowa, the largest producer of ethanol in the United States, had 25.6% of the nation's fuel ethanol manufacturing capacity in 2017."

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IA

[XSIV4S]

32 minutes ago, minderasr said:

I'm no tree hugger, far from it.  But what about the wind turbines and solar panels killing birds?

Free bird meat for the coyotes

 

[gwalchmai]

The only reason wind and solar power hasn't worked so far is that today's smart young leaders haven't been given free rein to develop the tech. Allie Occasional-Vortex will invest in green battery technology. probably from Ray-O-Vac trees, which will make wind and solar work just fine.

[Moeman]

Others countries are ahead of us... they supplied subsides and now sell into the US. Oil is here for sure, natural gas a no brainer. Have mixed feelings about fracking due to contamination of underground water. There is no such thing as clean coal. 

So, setting up part of our energy grid in non poisoning just makes sense. Think of the Exxon Valdez and the Gulf oil wells disasters. Has there ever been a solar spill? The oil companies get American wells and we se little gain. Check out Norway’s sovereign fund, generations will have money. Out.

[gwalchmai]

2 hours ago, Moeman said:

 Has there ever been a solar spill?

Great question, Moe. I agree that there's a need for a cradle-to-grave accounting of the environmental impact of a KW of solar vs a KW of coal vs a KW of NatGas vs a KW of wind vs a KW of nuke, etc. Only then can we make informed decisions. Otherwise there's just too much special interest and fudge.

[Boogieman]

2 hours ago, Moeman said:

Others countries are ahead of us... they supplied subsides and now sell into the US. Oil is here for sure, natural gas a no brainer. Have mixed feelings about fracking due to contamination of underground water. There is no such thing as clean coal. 

So, setting up part of our energy grid in non poisoning just makes sense. Think of the Exxon Valdez and the Gulf oil wells disasters. Has there ever been a solar spill? The oil companies get American wells and we se little gain. Check out Norway’s sovereign fund, generations will have money. Out.

So now you want government subsidies?  Not very fiscally conservitive of you.  But very edgy.  lol

[Boogieman]

My employer has had me on several project concerning this bad mo fo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station

Speaking with those involved, if attempted in America the project would cost at least 8 times as much and take several decades longer.  Democrats and Unions make anything so grand unfeasible in the US.

[crockett]

The company I used to work for was part in the complex installation and maintenance of offshore turbines, mainly for crew changes. Germany got a huge knowledge base because they started out a very long time ago. They are now close to making 20% by wind. This industry created many jobs and made Germany more independent from foreign oil and gas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[janice6]

This is only one deposit.

 

"Geologists have long suspected that the seafloor is dotted with deposits of a slushy mix of methane and water, but the Resolution’s crew was the first to measure how much is actually there. The amount is stunning. Along Blake Ridge alone, 250 miles off South Carolina, are 35 billion tons of buried methane, equivalent to the United States’ natural-gas consumption over 105 years." -- Discover Magazine

 

 

[gwalchmai]

¡Yo quiero Taco Bell!

[fortyofforty]

8 hours ago, jmohme said:

By implimenting  wind turbines now while still relying on current means of generating power, wind turbine technology will continue to be refined and will most certainly evolve into a more effective form for a time when we are forced to impliment alternative methods of power generation.

Let the free market work, and we'll find out just how cheaply and efficiently wind and solar power can be generated.

Not to mention, solar farms block sunlight from reaching the ground, impacting the environment, and wind turbines interfere with air movement at ground level, impacting the environment.  I suppose one environmental impact is chosen over another, but by whom and why?

[Bearcat74]

So, wind energy needs a clean source of power to "clean up" the dirty power it produces, so you need a condensing unit somewhere in the system (hydro power) to make sure it is stable and has enough negative vars to flow to the end users. so really wind does not gain you much and when the wind is not blowing hard enough you still have to have a source of power (hydro, coal, NG, etc.) so really what do we gain by installing all of the towers, not much. Just one of my units will give you 155MW 365/24-7 (x16) so that is where our money and effort should be focused. 

[RenoF250]

7 hours ago, Boogieman said:

My employer has had me on several project concerning this bad mo fo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station

Speaking with those involved, if attempted in America the project would cost at least 8 times as much and take several decades longer.  Democrats and Unions make anything so grand unfeasible in the US.

What makes you think that?  9B for 580MW = $15.51WMW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

1B for 110 MW = $9.09/MW

 

Much smaller but there is plenty of room for more out there.

[jame]

I'm a corn grower, owning shares in an ethanol plant, in a farm state that grows more corn and produces more ethanol than any other state.  Iowa has really pushed that dime all the way across the table and back.

Yet, I'm certainly no fan of ethanol.  The time has come for it to sink or swim.

We're also full speed ahead on wind energy, but there, too, it's no magic bullet.

We're also home to Thin Film Technologies, a company that pioneered those paper thin solar collectors that are sewn into many tents around the world that house our military.  But there again, are draw backs.

And most of the world knows the deal on petrol.   As XSIV4S said, getting it to market ain't getting easier.

And all of those energy industries suck up subsidies as fast as they can get 'em.

I don't think that theres any one, single, silver bullet.  I think all of those, and other forms of energy will be used in the future.  It will just depend on the available resources, and the refinement of those technologies over time.

But it takes time and money to develop those technologies.  We need energy if we're going to maintain this chosen lifestyle, so we might as well embrace the pursuit of those technologies.

[holyjohnson]

i have been a proponent of Solar mostly because if it is on my home i own it and it is mine,my investment,my equipment,my energy.

MN just came around to incentivizing solar enough to make it worthwhile including a lottery to pay up to 60% of all the costs.

[Boogieman]

1 hour ago, RenoF250 said:

What makes you think that?  9B for 580MW = $15.51WMW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

1B for 110 MW = $9.09/MW

 

Much smaller but there is plenty of room for more out there.

Because of the hot salt storage.  The projects are completely different.  

[SC Tiger]

23 hours ago, jmohme said:

By implimenting  wind turbines now while still relying on current means of generating power, wind turbine technology will continue to be refined and will most certainly evolve into a more effective form for a time when we are forced to impliment alternative methods of power generation.

There is something to this.  The problem with non-renewable energy like coal, oil, even natural gas is, well, it's non renewable.  Eventually we will run out.  We need an alternative method for getting electricity.  I think a mix of solar and wind could provide at least extra time for the non-renewable sources.

Of course, the real power player in non-fossil fuel power is nuclear.  But that's hard to implement, scary, and I don't know how much of the stuff we need for that either.

23 hours ago, minderasr said:

I'm no tree hugger, far from it.  But what about the wind turbines and solar panels killing birds?

I would think there has to be some solution for that.  Some way to make the birds just not want to go there.

17 hours ago, crockett said:

The company I used to work for was part in the complex installation and maintenance of offshore turbines, mainly for crew changes. Germany got a huge knowledge base because they started out a very long time ago. They are now close to making 20% by wind. This industry created many jobs and made Germany more independent from foreign oil and gas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is encouraging, and yet not.  Germany has been at this for longer than most anyone else and is still only at 20%

9 hours ago, holyjohnson said:

i have been a proponent of Solar mostly because if it is on my home i own it and it is mine,my investment,my equipment,my energy.

MN just came around to incentivizing solar enough to make it worthwhile including a lottery to pay up to 60% of all the costs.

Good point on Solar and if done right it can power an energy efficient home.  I've considered it (thought about it, not really researched it) for my house but I'm still not sure about it.  Specifically the long-term viability, maintenance costs, durability (will a hard rain damage the panels), etc of it.  Plus the cost-benefit.

Edited August 13, 2018 by SC Tiger

[SC Tiger]

Something I have never understood is the "de facto" conservative opposition to alternative energy.  Part of being a conservative - to me - is independence.  That means we don't have to rely on any other country.  If we use more oil, gas, etc - we are dependent on other countries (or we will be).

The alternative energy has to WORK, mind you - it can't be pissing in the wind like a solar powered car.  But if we find something viable, that's a win, isn't it?