Renewable Energy Will Never Supply Our Needs?

[Steve G]

In a first, wind power is second-leading U.S. source of electricity in one day

Power generated by wind turbines in the United States hit a milestone last week, becoming the second-highest source of electricity in the country for a 24-hour period, according to the Energy Information Administration.

www.yahoo.com

Wind turbines generated more than 2,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. on Tuesday, March 29, more than was provided by nuclear and coal power plants that day. Wind power, which is renewable and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, still trailed the electricity produced by natural gas, but it was the first time in U.S. history that wind turbines outperformed nuclear and coal power.

wait what..........

 

[bdgan]

In a first, wind power is second-leading U.S. source of electricity in one day

Power generated by wind turbines in the United States hit a milestone last week, becoming the second-highest source of electricity in the country for a 24-hour period, according to the Energy Information Administration.

www.yahoo.com

Wind turbines generated more than 2,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. on Tuesday, March 29, more than was provided by nuclear and coal power plants that day. Wind power, which is renewable and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, still trailed the electricity produced by natural gas, but it was the first time in U.S. history that wind turbines outperformed nuclear and coal power.

wait what..........

No, wind will NEVER supply all of our energy needs.

 

[interrobang]

Wind and solar will never come close to meeting America's power demands. Just way too inefficient in their current forms

 

[jjw165]

I don’t understand how wind generated more power than nuclear ☢️ and coal for a single day. This only happened on March 29th? Was the wind 💨 unusually gusty that day? Color me skeptical 🧐.

 

[interrobang]

. This only happened on March 29th? Was the wind 💨 unusually gusty that day?

Actually, yes. There has been a large scale high wind event over much of the midwest this week

Wind Map

 

[HartfordLlion]

In a first, wind power is second-leading U.S. source of electricity in one day

Power generated by wind turbines in the United States hit a milestone last week, becoming the second-highest source of electricity in the country for a 24-hour period, according to the Energy Information Administration.

www.yahoo.com

Wind turbines generated more than 2,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. on Tuesday, March 29, more than was provided by nuclear and coal power plants that day. Wind power, which is renewable and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, still trailed the electricity produced by natural gas, but it was the first time in U.S. history that wind turbines outperformed nuclear and coal power.

wait what..........

Great, I guess we can now remove all rate and installation subsidies for wind seeing that it can stand on it own two feet . . . . . .

 

[m.knox]

In a first, wind power is second-leading U.S. source of electricity in one day

Power generated by wind turbines in the United States hit a milestone last week, becoming the second-highest source of electricity in the country for a 24-hour period, according to the Energy Information Administration.

www.yahoo.com

Wind turbines generated more than 2,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. on Tuesday, March 29, more than was provided by nuclear and coal power plants that day. Wind power, which is renewable and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, still trailed the electricity produced by natural gas, but it was the first time in U.S. history that wind turbines outperformed nuclear and coal power.

wait what..........

I don't know Steve. Are you sure the EIA got the memo??

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

 

[Monlion]

In a first, wind power is second-leading U.S. source of electricity in one day

Power generated by wind turbines in the United States hit a milestone last week, becoming the second-highest source of electricity in the country for a 24-hour period, according to the Energy Information Administration.

www.yahoo.com

Wind turbines generated more than 2,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. on Tuesday, March 29, more than was provided by nuclear and coal power plants that day. Wind power, which is renewable and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, still trailed the electricity produced by natural gas, but it was the first time in U.S. history that wind turbines outperformed nuclear and coal power.

wait what..........

That sounds good until you study power data over a longer period of time. Just one month earlier, for an 8 day period from February 24th through March 3rd, wind only supplied 7% of the nation's power. Substantially less than nuclear and coal. It gets worse than that, just 8 months earlier for a 37 day period from June 27th through August 3rd, wind only supplied 5% of the nation's power.

If wind is going to supply the nation's power were going to need a hell of a lot more wind turbines plus battery capacity measured in terawatt hours and massive DC power lines crisscrossing the country to take the power from where the wind is blowing to where it is needed.

The data is readily available on the EIA website if you want to run the numbers yourself.

 

[rumble_lion]

Wind and solar will never come close to meeting America's power demands. Just way too inefficient in their current forms

Inefficient? Last time I checked the wind and sun were free.

 

[Obliviax]

Keep thinking that through mid terms please

 

[rumble_lion]

That sounds good until you study power data over a longer period of time. Just one month earlier, for an 8 day period from February 24th through March 3rd, wind only supplied 7% of the nation's power. Substantially less than nuclear and coal. It gets worse than that, just 8 months earlier for a 37 day period from June 27th through August 3rd, wind only supplied 5% of the nation's power.

If wind is going to supply the nation's power were going to need a hell of a lot more wind turbines plus battery capacity measured in terawatt hours and massive DC power lines crisscrossing the country to take the power from where the wind is blowing to where it is needed.

The data is readily available on the EIA website if you want to run the numbers yourself.

This is pretty cool.

West Virginia’s largest solar farm will sit on the site of the 5,800-acre Hobet Mine, one of the state’s largest former coal mines, which went bankrupt in 2015.​

​

The solar farm will be situated on 3,000 acres of the site, which straddles Boone and Lincoln counties in the southwestern part of the state, near Charleston. It will power an adjacent 2,800-acre site that will host industry, lodging, hospitality, and recreation, and the whole site will be known as SunPark. The solar farm is the first phase of the project.​

​

The 250-megawatt solar farm is spearheaded by SEVA WV.​

 

[LioninHouston]

In a first, wind power is second-leading U.S. source of electricity in one day

Power generated by wind turbines in the United States hit a milestone last week, becoming the second-highest source of electricity in the country for a 24-hour period, according to the Energy Information Administration.

www.yahoo.com

Wind turbines generated more than 2,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. on Tuesday, March 29, more than was provided by nuclear and coal power plants that day. Wind power, which is renewable and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, still trailed the electricity produced by natural gas, but it was the first time in U.S. history that wind turbines outperformed nuclear and coal power.

wait what..........

Any word on how many birds were slaughtered?

 

[m.knox]

Inefficient? Last time I checked the wind and sun were free.

Nothing is for free Comrade. Resources will be consumed if humans live on Earth.

 

[Monlion]

This is pretty cool.

West Virginia’s largest solar farm will sit on the site of the 5,800-acre Hobet Mine, one of the state’s largest former coal mines, which went bankrupt in 2015.​

​

The solar farm will be situated on 3,000 acres of the site, which straddles Boone and Lincoln counties in the southwestern part of the state, near Charleston. It will power an adjacent 2,800-acre site that will host industry, lodging, hospitality, and recreation, and the whole site will be known as SunPark. The solar farm is the first phase of the project.​

​

The 250-megawatt solar farm is spearheaded by SEVA WV.​

In 2002 the Hobert mine produced 5 million tons of coal, assuming 15000 BTU per lb that comes to 1.5e+14 BTU of available energy for that year. Using this in a 33% efficient coal fired power plant results in a total of 14,500,000 MWhrs of electricity generated for that year. So the new 250 MW capacity Hobart solar farm operating at perhaps a 20% capacity factor will generate 50 MW of electricity every hour. At the rate it will only take 33 years for the solar farm to generate the amount of electricity that the mine, along with a coal fired power plant, could provide in one year.

 

[tgar]

Anybody ever been to Costa Rica where 100% of their energy is generated Without burning anything?

Wind, geo thermal, hydro electric, solar cover all of it.

 

[gjbankos]

In a first, wind power is second-leading U.S. source of electricity in one day

Power generated by wind turbines in the United States hit a milestone last week, becoming the second-highest source of electricity in the country for a 24-hour period, according to the Energy Information Administration.

www.yahoo.com

Wind turbines generated more than 2,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. on Tuesday, March 29, more than was provided by nuclear and coal power plants that day. Wind power, which is renewable and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, still trailed the electricity produced by natural gas, but it was the first time in U.S. history that wind turbines outperformed nuclear and coal power.

wait what..........

You are rusty. Renewable energy will never fulfill all our needs. You know that. Stop it.

 

[gjbankos]

Anybody ever been to Costa Rica where 100% of their energy is generated Without burning anything?

Wind, geo thermal, hydro electric, solar cover all of it.

Really? Costa Rica?

Stop.

 

[SR108]

In 2002 the Hobert mine produced 5 million tons of coal, assuming 15000 BTU per lb that comes to 1.5e+14 BTU of available energy for that year. Using this in a 33% efficient coal fired power plant results in a total of 14,500,000 MWhrs of electricity generated for that year. So the new 250 MW capacity Hobart solar farm operating at perhaps a 20% capacity factor will generate 50 MW of electricity every hour. At the rate it will only take 33 years for the solar farm to generate the amount of electricity that the mine, along with a coal fired power plant, could provide in one year.

Why are all you mean conservatives trying to burst these nice green guy’s bubbles?

 

[gjbankos]

Inefficient? Last time I checked the wind and sun were free.

you are dumb.

 

[gjbankos]

This is pretty cool.

West Virginia’s largest solar farm will sit on the site of the 5,800-acre Hobet Mine, one of the state’s largest former coal mines, which went bankrupt in 2015.​

​

The solar farm will be situated on 3,000 acres of the site, which straddles Boone and Lincoln counties in the southwestern part of the state, near Charleston. It will power an adjacent 2,800-acre site that will host industry, lodging, hospitality, and recreation, and the whole site will be known as SunPark. The solar farm is the first phase of the project.​

​

The 250-megawatt solar farm is spearheaded by SEVA WV.​

That's a crapload of panels bought from China. I wonder if Joe is getting 10% of that deal.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

It all sounds great until you consider the costs of creating wind and solar farms. Lots of steel and Chinese panels spread out across our land and seas. A complete eyesore. Then it all has to be wired.

We should be embracing natural gas full tilt and going hard on nuclear fusion research. The answer is there, and it doesn't require an intermittent, unreliable mess.

There is a story out this week which lends even more credence to the UFO phenomenon. They have the answer.

We should not be wasting our time with Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. The rest of the world is still going to use fossil fuels. THEY DON'T CARE WHAT AMERICAN DEMOCRATS THINK. THEY CARE ONLY TO EXPLOIT DEMOCRAT IGNORANCE FOR THEIR OWN ECONOMIC GAIN.

 

[m.knox]

Anybody ever been to Costa Rica where 100% of their energy is generated Without burning anything?

Wind, geo thermal, hydro electric, solar cover all of it.

67% hydro......

Yeah baby. Dam baby dam.

I'm pretty sure putting a dam on the Monongahela or the Youghiogheny would be welcome.

LOL... I'm watching "Bizarre Foods" where they are fishing for Catfish on the Allegheny in Pittsburgh.

 

[rumble_lion]

It all sounds great until you consider the costs of creating wind and solar farms. Lots of steel and Chinese panels spread out across our land and seas. A complete eyesore. Then it all has to be wired.

We should be embracing natural gas full tilt and going hard on nuclear fusion research. The answer is there, and it doesn't require an intermittent, unreliable mess.

There is a story out this week which lends even more credence to the UFO phenomenon. They have the answer.

We should not be wasting our time with Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. The rest of the world is still going to use fossil fuels. THEY DON'T CARE WHAT AMERICAN DEMOCRATS THINK. THEY CARE ONLY TO EXPLOIT DEMOCRAT IGNORANCE FOR THEIR OWN ECONOMIC GAIN.

It all sounds great until you consider the costs of creating wind and solar farms. Lots of steel and Chinese panels spread out across our land and seas. A complete eyesore. Then it all has to be wired.

You don't find it even a little bit odd that you worry about using steel and for solar and wind farms but not for building oil wells, deep sea drilling rigs, oil refineries and pipelines for fossil fuels?

 

[m.knox]

It all sounds great until you consider the costs of creating wind and solar farms. Lots of steel and Chinese panels spread out across our land and seas. A complete eyesore. Then it all has to be wired.

You don't find it even a little bit odd that you worry about using steel and for solar and wind farms but not for building oil wells, deep sea drilling rigs, oil refineries and pipelines for fossil fuels?

No not at all. If solar were to scale of oil and gas, you would be complaining just the same.

The only solution is global thermonuclear war.......... lol....

 

[HartfordLlion]

In 2002 the Hobert mine produced 5 million tons of coal, assuming 15000 BTU per lb that comes to 1.5e+14 BTU of available energy for that year. Using this in a 33% efficient coal fired power plant results in a total of 14,500,000 MWhrs of electricity generated for that year. So the new 250 MW capacity Hobart solar farm operating at perhaps a 20% capacity factor will generate 50 MW of electricity every hour. At the rate it will only take 33 years for the solar farm to generate the amount of electricity that the mine, along with a coal fired power plant, could provide in one year.

Lol Rumble got owned big time.

 

[LMTLION]

Solar can power the world if you cover places like the Sahara with thousands of miles of solar panels, but doing so would raise the temperature of the desert and catastrophically damage global climate patterns. A quick google search will show you articles on this topic. Wind power may be great on certain days like 3/29, but it is highly unreliable. One day we will come to our senses and again embrace nuclear power.

 

[rumble_lion]

Solar can power the world if you cover places like the Sahara with thousands of miles of solar panels, but doing so would raise the temperature of the desert and catastrophically damage global climate patterns. A quick google search will show you articles on this topic. Wind power may be great on certain days like 3/29, but it is highly unreliable. One day we will come to our senses and again embrace nuclear power.

Solar can power the world if you cover places like the Sahara with thousands of miles of solar panels, but doing so would raise the temperature of the desert and catastrophically damage global climate patterns.

I don't think we need to cover the desserts in solar panels.

The study, published today in the journal Scientific Reports, finds that if less than 1% of agricultural land was converted to solar panels, it would be sufficient to fulfill global electric energy demand. The concept of co-developing the same area of land for both solar photovoltaic power and conventional agriculture is known as agrivoltaics.​

​

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...ve places on,an Oregon State University study.​

It's hilarious that you are worried about solar panels increasing temperatures but not concerned at all about increasing Co2 in atmosphere from burning fossil fuels raising temperatures.

A quick google search will show you articles on this topic. Wind power may be great on certain days like 3/29, but it is highly unreliable. One day we will come to our senses and again embrace nuclear power.

It would not really take that many solar panels.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Great, I guess we can now remove all rate and installation subsidies for wind seeing that it can stand on it own two feet . . . . . .

And, of course, we'll completely ignore the disposal issues of damaged or deactivated turbines.

 

[Obliviax]

67% hydro......

Yeah baby. Dam baby dam.

I'm pretty sure putting a dam on the Monongahela or the Youghiogheny would be welcome.

LOL... I'm watching "Bizarre Foods" where they are fishing for Catfish on the Allegheny in Pittsburgh.

Costa Rica is about the population of South Carolina and hugs the ocean in a tropical climate with zero manufacturing. Hardly comparable to Illinois or Pennsylvania

 

[LMTLION]

Solar can power the world if you cover places like the Sahara with thousands of miles of solar panels, but doing so would raise the temperature of the desert and catastrophically damage global climate patterns.

I don't think we need to cover the desserts in solar panels.

The study, published today in the journal Scientific Reports, finds that if less than 1% of agricultural land was converted to solar panels, it would be sufficient to fulfill global electric energy demand. The concept of co-developing the same area of land for both solar photovoltaic power and conventional agriculture is known as agrivoltaics.​

​

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808123842.htm#:~:text=A new study finds that,fulfill global electric energy demand.&text=The most productive places on,an Oregon State University study.​

It's hilarious that you are worried about solar panels increasing temperatures but not concerned at all about increasing Co2 in atmosphere from burning fossil fuels raising temperatures.

A quick google search will show you articles on this topic. Wind power may be great on certain days like 3/29, but it is highly unreliable. One day we will come to our senses and again embrace nuclear power.

It would not really take that many solar panels.

View embedded media

I did not indicate I want to burn fossil fuels. I indicated I like nuclear. The study you link is interesting, but alone it is not conclusive that solar is our best option. It did not explore the potential climate harm of covering so much land with panels and potentially disrupting temperatures and climate. 20% panel coverage of the Sahara is catastrophic for global climate. Overall, I would never agree with solar and wind solely powering our grid. It is foolish to rely on the weather for our energy needs.

 

[rumble_lion]

I did not indicate I want to burn fossil fuels. I indicated I like nuclear. The study you link is interesting, but alone it is not conclusive that solar is our best option. It did not explore the potential climate harm of covering so much land with panels and potentially disrupting temperatures and climate. 20% panel coverage of the Sahara is catastrophic for global climate. Overall, I would never agree with solar and wind solely powering our grid. It is foolish to rely on the weather for our energy needs.

Overall, I would never agree with solar and wind solely powering our grid.

We will also have hydro and nuclear.

It is foolish to rely on the weather for our energy needs.

We will be using large utility scale batteries and other storage systems like pumped hydro.

 

[bdgan]

Solar can power the world if you cover places like the Sahara with thousands of miles of solar panels, but doing so would raise the temperature of the desert and catastrophically damage global climate patterns.

I don't think we need to cover the desserts in solar panels.

The study, published today in the journal Scientific Reports, finds that if less than 1% of agricultural land was converted to solar panels, it would be sufficient to fulfill global electric energy demand. The concept of co-developing the same area of land for both solar photovoltaic power and conventional agriculture is known as agrivoltaics.​

​

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808123842.htm#:~:text=A new study finds that,fulfill global electric energy demand.&text=The most productive places on,an Oregon State University study.​

It's hilarious that you are worried about solar panels increasing temperatures but not concerned at all about increasing Co2 in atmosphere from burning fossil fuels raising temperatures.

A quick google search will show you articles on this topic. Wind power may be great on certain days like 3/29, but it is highly unreliable. One day we will come to our senses and again embrace nuclear power.

It would not really take that many solar panels.

View embedded media

Have you ever driven past the miles of windmills in Palm Springs? So why is electricity in California more expensive than other states?

 

[HartfordLlion]

Costa Rica is about the population of South Carolina and hugs the ocean in a tropical climate with zero manufacturing. Hardly comparable to Illinois or Pennsylvania

Yep and due to the general lack of wealth of it's citizens, air conditioning is pretty sparse.

 

[Obliviax]

Yep and due to the general lack of wealth of it's citizens, air conditioning is pretty sparse.

Perhaps the point is we should all live in an idyllic environment with perfect weather on the ocean and nobody having to do any real physical labor

 

[interrobang]

 

[bourbon n blues]

Solar can power the world if you cover places like the Sahara with thousands of miles of solar panels, but doing so would raise the temperature of the desert and catastrophically damage global climate patterns. A quick google search will show you articles on this topic. Wind power may be great on certain days like 3/29, but it is highly unreliable. One day we will come to our senses and again embrace nuclear power.

Nuclear power is the greenest form of energy at the moment, and it's not a we thing. It's a them thing. these environmental zealots have been fighting it since I can recall and I was born in the early 60s
There is plenty of us more than willing to increase nuclear energy usage, them is the issue.

 

[2lion70]

Great, I guess we can now remove all rate and installation subsidies for wind seeing that it can stand on it own two feet . . . . . .

They can be removed right after the subsidies for oil, gas, and coal get removed.

 

[2lion70]

Nuclear fusion may become possible soon. Then there will be a move to that new green energy source.

 

[PSUEngineer89]

They can be removed right after the subsidies for oil, gas, and coal get removed.

Subsidies.....or tax breaks?

Absolutely, completely, without dispute, different things.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

They can be removed right after the subsidies for oil, gas, and coal get removed.

Tell us about these subsidies, and be specific.