Wind and Solar Power Could Meet 80% of US Electricity Demand

[alxnet7227]

I am going to guess modern plants wont be quite like that...

In addition, modern plant designs have many safety features missing from older plants (like Fukushima) with passive safety features that kick in even without human involvement.

Besides, blanketing our landscape with solar & wind will kill off the majority of our bird population either by blunt force or burning, neither of which many in the green movement would want.

 

[shad0w4life]

And I'm guessing wind power won't be sitting in the middle of a flat land, but instead far off a coast somewhere. Generally where wind is windier. Turns out water generates more wind than dry land.

Which completely messes up ocean creatures that use magnetic fields to navigate...

Wind murders bats MUCH higher than anticipated due to low pressure differences exploding their lungs :

Wind turbines are killing bats, including ones on the endangered species list, at nearly double the rate set as acceptable by the Ontario government, the latest monitoring report indicates.
Bats are being killed in Ontario at the rate of 18.5 per turbine, resulting in an estimated 42,656 bat fatalities in Ontario between May 1 and October 31, 2015, according to the report released by Bird Studies Canada, a bird conservation organization.
Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources has set 10 bat deaths per turbine as the threshold at which the mortalities are considered significant and warrant action.
The bats being killed by turbines in Ontario include the little brown bat, tri-coloured bat, eastern small footed bat, and northern long-eared bat, all on the endangered species list.



Solar manufacturing is extremely harmful to environment, Nuclear is still best.

 

[bugleyman]

You first. Lead by example I always say. If you aren't willing to live at a much lower standard of living, then don't demand that I do.

Saw that coming. The problem is that society as a whole has to change to address the problem.

But like I said...our current lifestyle is unsustainable. Sooner or later, if we don't do it, it will be done for us. And that would be ugly.

 

[bugleyman]

Which completely messes up ocean creatures that use magnetic fields to navigate...

Wind murders bats MUCH higher than anticipated due to low pressure differences exploding their lungs :

Wind turbines are killing bats, including ones on the endangered species list, at nearly double the rate set as acceptable by the Ontario government, the latest monitoring report indicates.
Bats are being killed in Ontario at the rate of 18.5 per turbine, resulting in an estimated 42,656 bat fatalities in Ontario between May 1 and October 31, 2015, according to the report released by Bird Studies Canada, a bird conservation organization.
Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources has set 10 bat deaths per turbine as the threshold at which the mortalities are considered significant and warrant action.
The bats being killed by turbines in Ontario include the little brown bat, tri-coloured bat, eastern small footed bat, and northern long-eared bat, all on the endangered species list.



Solar manufacturing is extremely harmful to environment, Nuclear is still best.

I actually have zero issues with nuclear, and think we should build more, at least as a stopgap until we can crack fusion.

But I appreciate that I'm in the minority, especially on my "side of the aisle."

 

[Taldren]

Lol, the report if full of crap.

The weather cooperation and maintenance required make this pure fantasy.

 

[mullet]

 

[Dead Parrot]

Papers similar to this show up every year or so. Often from organizations that are located in 'Not In My Backyard' areas. If Cali likes wind so much, start covering San Fran, LA, San Diego and their formerly scenic hillsides with windmills. Not the little ones that dot some of the California hillsides, the big ones like in TX and OK farmland. Then add the HV power lines dangling over thousands of backyards to move power from where the wind is blowing this minute to where it isn't. Repeat with acres of solar panels. Add in hundreds of neighborhood battery storage locations and more power lines.

 

[ep0x73]

A perfect way to have solar and not build huge arrays is simply to have homeowners install solar shingles onto their homes and add to the grid.
There would have to be some incentive of course, tax breaks or the government helping.

This won't happen though since power companies would be cut out from the loop unless THEY used your home and installed the shingles.
If they gave you free energy by using your property to produce power they can then sell the extra, it could be a win-win.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Sure, if we cover the rest of the unoccupied land with solar and wind farms.

Hyperbole. That is not what the article states at all.

by building either a continental-scale transmission network

This suggests that you build wind farms where it's most windy, or solar farms where they get the most sunlight.

 

[Gigus Fire]

I don't see why we can't go full on capitalism on this venture. Pic related:

 

[Master_shake_]

 

[tetris42]

Sure, if we cover the rest of the unoccupied land with solar and wind farms. That will be great for the environment .

I don't know about you, but this looks pretty dystopian to me.

Good call, we should probably go back to this, much better:

 

[Madoc]

How about we just reduce the human population by 80%. That'd fix a lot of problems.

 

[Gigus Fire]

A perfect way to have solar and not build huge arrays is simply to have homeowners install solar shingles onto their homes and add to the grid.
There would have to be some incentive of course, tax breaks or the government helping.

This won't happen though since power companies would be cut out from the loop unless THEY used your home and installed the shingles.
If they gave you free energy by using your property to produce power they can then sell the extra, it could be a win-win.

They already have huge incentives.
In the US you get 30% off solar installation, 30% in addition to anything else needed to make it happen (need a new roof? get 30% off), then you have state and county subsidies which on average is probably around 3-5k extra on top of that.

A typical 10kw system is probably around 25-35k. After incentives it could be 14-20k That's less than the cost of a new car that will pay for itself fully in 5-10 years (on average).
Screw saving the environment, it makes sense $ wise.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Looks like a seagull chopping yard! Talk about a blight on otherwise quiet body of water

Oh no what shall we do without annoying sea rats! Bet you are against destroying pigeon habitats in cities too!

 

[Gigus Fire]

How about we just reduce the human population by 80%. That'd fix a lot of problems.

Starting with you first?

 

[Madoc]

Starting with you first?

Wow. That was amazingly clever. I never thought anyone would've responded that way.

How about... reduction over time by limiting new births? Oh, but no! That would be UNFAIR. Better to keep increasing populations until the planetary ecosystem collapses under its weight. That's a *really* good plan, and no amount of carbon-emission taxes, wind farms, or solar power generators are going to stop that from happening. At this rate, it's just a matter of time.

 

[kju1]

Saw that coming. The problem is that society as a whole has to change to address the problem.

But like I said...our current lifestyle is unsustainable. Sooner or later, if we don't do it, it will be done for us. And that would be ugly.

Only if we limit ourselves to the resources on this planet. Why not start trying to exploit other resources?

Wow. That was amazingly clever. I never thought anyone would've responded that way.

How about... reduction over time by limiting new births? Oh, but no! That would be UNFAIR. Better to keep increasing populations until the planetary ecosystem collapses under its weight. That's a *really* good plan, and no amount of carbon-emission taxes, wind farms, or solar power generators are going to stop that from happening. At this rate, it's just a matter of time.

Limit new births? No. That is not something a free country does. Period. Hell most oppressive regimes don't even do that because its just a plain bad idea. How exactly are you going to enforce that? Kill any kid thats born illegally? Forced contraceptives? Forced sterilization?


Thats just a whole bag of stupid right there.

 

[bugleyman]

Only if we limit ourselves to the resources on this planet. Why not start trying to exploit other resources?

That may solve the problem...but personally I don't want to bet the future of the species on it. Especially given the dismal state of space exploration ATM.

 

[kju1]

That may solve the problem...but personally I don't want to bet the future of the species on it. Especially given the dismal state of space exploration ATM.

I agree that space is in utter shambles right now. But honestly that IS our future. If we dont become a multiplanet species we die. There is only so many years the Earth can sustain us and only so many of us it can sustain. Eventually it will run out absent any major technological breakthrough of course.

 

[bugleyman]

I agree that space is in utter shambles right now. But honestly that IS our future. If we dont become a multiplanet species we die. There is only so many years the Earth can sustain us and only so many of us it can sustain. Eventually it will run out absent any major technological breakthrough of course.

Not to mention we're much more likely to be wiped out by a meteor (or a radiation pulse, or a nuclear war) as long as we're all on this planet. I'm 100% on board with "let's get humanity off this rock." I just think we need to hedge our bets.

 

[sleepeeg3]

Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done affordably? Not even close. Wind 3x as expensive and solar 6x as expensive as conventional alternatives.

Solar/wind advocates never talk about two things - costs and replacements costs. Both technologies are extremely expensive to build and have to be replaced every 20-25 years. Conventional power plants last for 60-100+ years.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

That many windmills would chop up lots of birds.

Just reduce the feral cat population by a few percent to make up the difference. House cats kill one to four billion birds a year.

Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done affordably? Not even close. Wind 3x as expensive and solar 6x as expensive as conventional alternatives.

Solar/wind advocated never talk about two things - costs and replacements costs. Both technologies are extremely expensive to build and have to be replaced every 20-25 years. Conventional power plants last for 60-100+ years.

A single nuclear plant is in the $10-20 billion range now, the capital costs are simply unmanageable and I don't have a lot of faith that they're going to deliver on any of these nuclear Renaissance ideas like the miniaturized reactors. Renewables obviously can't match nuclear efficiency but they're available immediately and really not that expensive any more.

 

[kju1]

Not to mention we're much more likely to be wiped out by a meteor (or a radiation pulse, or a nuclear war) as long as we're all on this planet. I'm 100% on board with "let's get humanity off this rock." I just think we need to hedge our bets.

I am on board with hedging of bets and improving tech here and now while working towards space exploration.

 

[Madoc]

Only if we limit ourselves to the resources on this planet. Why not start trying to exploit other resources?

Limit new births? No. That is not something a free country does. Period. Hell most oppressive regimes don't even do that because its just a plain bad idea. How exactly are you going to enforce that? Kill any kid thats born illegally? Forced contraceptives? Forced sterilization?

Thats just a whole bag of stupid right there.

Then we can freely populate ourselves out of existence. You guys can come up with whatever pie-in-the-sky idea you want, but that's not going to fix the overpopulation issue. Fortunately, once we start fighting over ever more limited resources, our population issues will start to ease. Whether there'll be anything left after that, though, is an open question.

 

[Gigus Fire]

Wow. That was amazingly clever. I never thought anyone would've responded that way.

How about... reduction over time by limiting new births? Oh, but no! That would be UNFAIR. Better to keep increasing populations until the planetary ecosystem collapses under its weight. That's a *really* good plan, and no amount of carbon-emission taxes, wind farms, or solar power generators are going to stop that from happening. At this rate, it's just a matter of time.

Welp, considering we don't have a world government that can dictate things like this unilaterally (thank god), i don't see how it'll be possible.
Even in one of the largest countries mandating 1 child birth was a complete and utter disaster. Then you have developing countries which 14 kids isn't too uncommon.

Luckily I already have a solution and that's to modernize. In practically every modern country the growth rate is in the negative with immigrants being the only positive growth rate.

Seems to me that the world already has a solution with population growth without someone trying to enforce caps. I'd even suggest to put a stop to massive immigration and allow the brain drain on countries to stop so they can develop and start declining in birthrates as well.

then there's also colonizing space and other planets. You need lots of people to do that. It doesn't seem like there's a sustainable limit really.

 

[nutzo]

Then we can freely populate ourselves out of existence. You guys can come up with whatever pie-in-the-sky idea you want, but that's not going to fix the overpopulation issue. Fortunately, once we start fighting over ever more limited resources, our population issues will start to ease. Whether there'll be anything left after that, though, is an open question.

You show a complete lack of faith in capitalism to provide.
The only places with limited resources and places that have limited economic freedom, like Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

In Western countries, in almost every case, there are more known resources today then there were 10/20/50 years ago.
Oil is a good example. We were running out in the 70's, yet we now have enough known reserves that should easily last us another 40+ years.

You also need to look at westernized countries and population. In most cases, the native populations are declining.
If we could bring more countries out of their 3rd world status/thinking, the population problem would correct itself.

 

[Madoc]

You show a complete lack of faith in capitalism to provide.
The only places with limited resources and places that have limited economic freedom, like Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

In Western countries, in almost every case, there are more known resources today then there were 10/20/50 years ago.
Oil is a good example. We were running out in the 70's, yet we now have enough known reserves that should easily last us another 40+ years.

You also need to look at westernized countries and population. In most cases, the native populations are declining.
If we could bring more countries out of their 3rd world status/thinking, the population problem would correct itself.

I have little faith in humanity, so I don't expect this matter to be fixed (not by us, anyway). And even though most 1st world nations have leveled out or even reduced their populations, as you said the 3rd world folks have not. They're now overrunning the developed nations, whose economies and various infrastructures are groaning under the weight.

I'm sure it is *possible* for tech and other advancements to give us time to figure things out and establish some sort of equilibrium that'll carry us into the future (where space travel becomes practicable), but I'm pretty dubious that we'll end up actually obtaining that sort of solution.

 

[Ranulfo]

Wow. That was amazingly clever. I never thought anyone would've responded that way.

How about... reduction over time by limiting new births? Oh, but no! That would be UNFAIR. Better to keep increasing populations until the planetary ecosystem collapses under its weight. That's a *really* good plan, and no amount of carbon-emission taxes, wind farms, or solar power generators are going to stop that from happening. At this rate, it's just a matter of time.

I'd donate a rifle, a 50lb rucksack worth of gear and a one way plane ticket for you to go "limit new births" in say, Africa, China or India. If population is such a problem, why do we offer so much food aid to the world? Why do we let more and more people into the western world via immigration? You want to solve the biggest population growth threat we face in the next 50-100 years? Stop sending any food to Africa.

 

[tetris42]

You show a complete lack of faith in capitalism to provide.
The only places with limited resources and places that have limited economic freedom, like Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

In Western countries, in almost every case, there are more known resources today then there were 10/20/50 years ago.
Oil is a good example. We were running out in the 70's, yet we now have enough known reserves that should easily last us another 40+ years.

You also need to look at westernized countries and population. In most cases, the native populations are declining.
If we could bring more countries out of their 3rd world status/thinking, the population problem would correct itself.

There's a lot wrong with what you're saying, I'll give some bullet points:

•I don't feel like researching everything we're declining on, but we're sure as hell don't have more wildlife than we have from 50 years ago, including western countries. It's declined 58%. That's totally not important for sustainability or a sign of environmental health or anything.

•As for oil, give me a break. First off, conventional oil has peaked since about 2005. It's not all the same oil, shale and offshore oil is essentially scraping the barrel for what's left. Even with the renewed boom, the US is currently producing substantially less oil than we're actually consuming. We're produced about 13.5 million barrels a day in 2016 and consumed 19.7. In other words, we can't even produce enough to cover our own usage. Projections by the EIA don't show this growing enough to meet demand. That's the very definition of unsustainable. We do have a lot of reserves, but we won't be able to extract that at a rate fast enough to meet demand, and it will be more costly to extract what's left, leading to a reduced EROI.

•Many 1st world countries DO have a shrinking population, but then they also consume more resources than is sustainable. We would need 1.5 earths of resources to meet sustainability, about 4 earths if everyone consumed like the United States

Much of the prosperity from capitalism comes from depleting existing resources and essentially borrowing from the future. It doesn't work well with hard limitations. The entire system is founded upon endless growth, which by its very definition is unsustainable.

 

[Gigus Fire]

There's a lot wrong with what you're saying, I'll give some bullet points:

•I don't feel like researching everything we're declining on, but we're sure as hell don't have more wildlife than we have from 50 years ago, including western countries. It's declined 58%. That's totally not important for sustainability or a sign of environmental health or anything.

•As for oil, give me a break. First off, conventional oil has peaked since about 2005. It's not all the same oil, shale and offshore oil is essentially scraping the barrel for what's left. Even with the renewed boom, the US is currently producing substantially less oil than we're actually consuming. We're produced about 13.5 million barrels a day in 2016 and consumed 19.7. In other words, we can't even produce enough to cover our own usage. Projections by the EIA don't show this growing enough to meet demand. That's the very definition of unsustainable. We do have a lot of reserves, but we won't be able to extract that at a rate fast enough to meet demand, and it will be more costly to extract what's left, leading to a reduced EROI.

•Many 1st world countries DO have a shrinking population, but then they also consume more resources than is sustainable. We would need 1.5 earths of resources to meet sustainability, about 4 earths if everyone consumed like the United States

Much of the prosperity from capitalism comes from depleting existing resources and essentially borrowing from the future. It doesn't work well with hard limitations. The entire system is founded upon endless growth, which by its very definition is unsustainable.

What resources aren't sustainable? We have this thing called recycling.... I'm not sure what isn't?

I think you're conflating running out of resources and resource extraction getting more expensive because the easy stuff isn't available anymore.

There's enough oil in the world to last another 40+ years. There's been a lot of research into more and more efficiency just in the last decade. We have enough nuclear material for the next 200+ years and then thorium for the next 10k years. If we can get commercial fusion via ITER up and running, we'll be fine for another 20,000 years +. Maybe we'll have to mine some He3 on the moon and in other remote spaces, which would expand our resources out in the solar system which will make everything so much more abundant.

 

[Draax]

Wait, I can do this too...

This just in! I can solve the entirety of the world power transmission issues with this one simple trick! Superconductors.

I'll just gloss over the fact that the technology don't exist yetyet wh simultaneously telling everyone that they're bad people and should feel bad for using nonrenewable energy. And something something no spinning reserve something solar something something rolling blackouts in California.

Where do I publish?

Well we may have created a room temperature superconductor, however we don’t know if it was metastable as the sample of metallic hydrogen was lost. Or it may have all been BS.

 

[tetris42]

What resources aren't sustainable? We have this thing called recycling.... I'm not sure what isn't?

Well oil, for starters. But I was thinking more in environmental sense like rate of fresh water usage that depletes aquifers, deforestation (which is not an issue in the united states currently, though we're still losing old growth forest, hence the massive wildlife dropoff stats), overfishing, etc. It basically applies to anything where we're consuming renewable resources at a faster rate than they're being renewed.

I think you're conflating running out of resources and resource extraction getting more expensive because the easy stuff isn't available anymore.

If it's a finite resource, one is related to the other. It's not even about expense so much as energy required to extract the oil. It's a case of diminishing returns so that the oil that is left isn't as productive for the same amount extracted. If the amount of hard to extract oil greatly outnumbered all the easy to extract oil there is / we've already extracted, your point would be valid. I haven't seen any projections that suggest that.

There's enough oil in the world to last another 40+ years.

There's enough oil to last centuries, what's much more in doubt is if there's enough oil that can be produced to meet future demand. The 70s crisis is a good example of what it looks like when you're still producing oil, but can't meet demand.

 

[NeoNemesis]

Looks like a seagull chopping yard! Talk about a blight on otherwise quiet body of water

Oh no! Not the poor seagulls!

All solutions come with trade offs, but the reality is that coal is killing a lot more than just birds and bats so I think we should go ahead and try something else. I'd personally vote for nuclear but people are so fucking afraid of that word that there's little chance of that happening so we might as well do wind and solar.

 

[Gigus Fire]

Well oil, for starters. But I was thinking more in environmental sense like rate of fresh water usage that depletes aquifers, deforestation (which is not an issue in the united states currently, though we're still losing old growth forest, hence the massive wildlife dropoff stats), overfishing, etc. It basically applies to anything where we're consuming renewable resources at a faster rate than they're being renewed.

If it's a finite resource, one is related to the other. It's not even about expense so much as energy required to extract the oil. It's a case of diminishing returns so that the oil that is left isn't as productive for the same amount extracted. If the amount of hard to extract oil greatly outnumbered all the easy to extract oil there is / we've already extracted, your point would be valid. I haven't seen any projections that suggest that.

There's enough oil to last centuries, what's much more in doubt is if there's enough oil that can be produced to meet future demand. The 70s crisis is a good example of what it looks like when you're still producing oil, but can't meet demand.

But there's solutions for everything. Desalinization plants for starters. Just replant forests. A lot of paper/wood producers do exactly that and farm trees for wood. Over-fishing is inevitable. Move to better fish farming instead as alternatives, or synthetic fish meat.

The only thing that an imbalance means is that a balance will have to be met in the future.

You pointed out that the resources are "and it will be more costly to extract what's left, leading to a reduced EROI." You're assuming today costs when costs are always going down due to automation. Imaging mining rare earth minerals by deploying mining robots. Imagine planting genetically engineered mushrooms that will dig roots into the earth and pull out the gold on the top of it. These are things we might see in our future.

As for most other materials, they can be reused.

Again, oil is just an easy source of energy until we perfect the next thing big, which is fusion. Nuclear is also available and with thorium we'll have thousands of years of energy before we need to move on to something else.

If fusion becomes a reality, desalinization plants become even easier to operate. Having practically unlimited energy and unlimited water will make most of the items necessary for humans to survive abundant.

 

[PaulP]

Saw that coming. The problem is that society as a whole has to change to address the problem.

But like I said...our current lifestyle is unsustainable. Sooner or later, if we don't do it, it will be done for us. And that would be ugly.

People have been saying that for 150 years, and we have managed to not only maintain our standard of living, but improve it. I will trust that our descendants will find a way to manage as well. That is their responsibility, just as ours is to do the best we can with the world our ancestors left us.

 

[Ranulfo]

Oh no! Not the poor seagulls!



All solutions come with trade offs, but the reality is that coal is killing a lot more than just birds and bats so I think we should go ahead and try something else. I'd personally vote for nuclear but people are so fucking afraid of that word that there's little chance of that happening so we might as well do wind and solar.

We've wrecked whole industries to save a few thousands of spotted owls. Those seagulls matter too dammit. Or are not all animals equal in your mind, you bigot!

 

[1_rick]

But we can (and do) sell electricity across time zones

As far as I know we don't do it across grids, which means "across time ZONE" is more accurate. This (grid synchronization) is a separate problem from the one I was talking about, and was more than adequately covered by others.

 

[NeoNemesis]

We've wrecked whole industries to save a few thousands of spotted owls. Those seagulls matter too dammit. Or are not all animals equal in your mind, you bigot!

Seagulls and Pigeons are parasites. Owls are....

 

[1_rick]

Saw that coming. The problem is that society as a whole has to change to address the problem.

But like I said...our current lifestyle is unsustainable. Sooner or later, if we don't do it, it will be done for us. And that would be ugly.

People have been building off-grid solar since at least the 80s, and I'm sure before. Assuming you don't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars just in solar panels & batteries, you can do it to, right now!

Of course, the standard of living is a hell of a lot lower when your power comes from 400W of panels and a couple of deep-cycle marine batteries.