Madoc
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 949
Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Wind and Solar Power Could Meet 80% of US Electricity Demand
- Thread starter DooKey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- solar power wind power
The problem with developed countries being overrun with 3rd world folks is largely due the all the welfare and other benefits being provided.
I would likely do the same thing if I was in some 3rd world mess of a country, and could move into a developed nation and have a much better life on welfare.
The solution is to stop the handouts. Just like the signs in the national parks that say "Don't Feed the Bears".
It's dangerous for the people and it makes the bears dependent on handouts.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
The whole point of this discussion is a study addressing precisely that point. They think we can reliably provide up to 80% of our energy needs with renewable sources.
On that sort of scale you would use solar/wind to store massive amounts of energy, like pumping water into reservoirs with dams and/or generating a hydrogen/ammonia reserve. Then you just need enough wind/solar to maintain the energy reserve.
Last edited:
You solar/wind advocates are living in a fantasy land and being fed false numbers. The green sites never give costs based on actual efficiency (<20% for solar and ~30% for wind) or lifespan. But most people are either too lazy or too afraid of reality to do the math themselves.
I have done the cost breakdown on solar/wind and nuclear wins by 3-6x. Even after redoing the numbers based on newer major solar/wind plants the costs are surprisingly even WORSE than they were before.
It's simply lies saying solar/wind are cheaper. Just look at Germany for example. They are stupidly phasing out their nuclear power plants, while energy costs are soaring and they are having to subsidize the solar/wind industry with "renewable" energy fees.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ger...r-prices-at-record-high-verivox-idUSL8N1MZ30X
The US needs more cost effective nuclear power plants, if we want to get away from coal/oil.
Last edited:
There are. The debate is less about the capability of renewables and more about where to set the goalposts. Transmission we know how to do and what the costs are. Storage is much more speculative as there's not a winning tehcnology, and anyone being honest knows we ahve a line forming for the raw materials underpinning current battery technology that exceeds the supply of said materials.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
If you want to see how much further you could push your savings, do a leak test on the house. If you're really tight, GREAT!
If you've got leaks, a bit of caulk, construction adhesive and spray foam can do wonders (around windows, use the "minimally expanding" stuff, and the "big crack filler" stuff for pretty much everything that's not a window/door.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Okay, not trying to rag on you or anything. And this isn't REALLY directed at you.
But FUCK do I wish people would stop using the term "common sense".
Because, for it to be common, everyone involved needs to have agreed to a certain body of facts and information.
This is pretty much a no-go from the outset.
Second, "sense" is used in lieu of "It agrees with my preconceived biases.
The term is also fairly aggro. As it implies that if you disagree, even in a nuanced and very specific manner, you're not being "sensible" (i.e. irrational).
Okay
</RANT>
Fair enough. "Common sense" is an often-abused phrase. Personally, I tend to use it in lieu of "don't be a dumb-ass."
Seriously, though...what is the alternative in this case? Individual freedom should be totally unconstrained by concern for the well-being of of others? That is literally anarchy. And -- dare I say it -- irrational.
Edit: How about this: If we agree to stop using "common sense," can we do the same for "fake news"? To me, that is a far worse offender.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Okay, remember when Obama said "Power is going to be getting more expensive?"
Had he NOT been talking about trying to simply crash coal/oil fired plant operations, my answer to that would have been "FINE!".
People like to talk about how "nuclear is the most expensive".
It's a "Get what you pay for" proposition. You get ENORMOUS power density (you could comfortably power the entire country with a land usage of about 550 square miles of nuclear reactor facilities), as opposed to something the size of Nevada (for solar PV) or something the size of Texas (for Wind) at maximum density.
If I had to pay 2x-3x what I'm paying now to know:
A) We don't have to worry about capacity again for a minimum of 100 years
B) We're producing next to no greenhouse gasses
C) We're using power surplus to go net-positive on carbon emissions.
I do it in a heartbeat.
Would it destroy the coal industry? Mostly.
Would it destroy the NG industry? Yep. So? Retrain.
Would it destroy the petroleum industry? HAHAHAHA! Not a chance in hell. It'd probably put a BIG dent in OPEC's revenues though.
And if it'd shut up the no-nuke people, I'd volunteer to LIVE in a nuclear power facility, wearing an exposure tag 24x7.
Not to mention, if we're looking at LFTR technology, it would help jump-start the US rare earths market again and loose the strangle hold the Chinese created by not giving a shit about their environment.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 41,961
Thank you for articulating that. This is exactly how I feel.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
1: That PowerWall2 setup basically means that home has 4 (COUNT 'EM, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR) giant batteries in their system. All of which can be used for power.
2: Also betting that system is still grid-tied. And, depending on the local regulations, a grid tied system gives you NO POWER when you lose the grid. This is a safety measure to insure that a utility worker isn't accidentally killed when working on the grid and doesn't know there might be power flowing on the residential side of the connection.
3: Again, at carrier-grade, face it, there simply is NOT enough battery capacity available. As noted earlier, to back up all renewables (not the entire power grid) in the US (and remember that renewables are a small percentage overall), you're talking about consuming the entire planet's battery construction supply FOR A WHOLE YEAR.
And then having to do it again every 10-20 years.
Again, residential solar with battery backup is less about "green" and more about fixing your energy costs.
Sorry if I'm a buzzkill about it.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Oh it's wrong all right.
It's wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start.
A couple points of contention:
- Such a system would probably be grid-tied for legal reasons (which is kinda crazy).
- Wouldn't it be trivial to ensure that losing the grid didn't require de-energizing the local system? That sounds more like an excuse than a real reason.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
Already done...3rd party on behalf of the EPA came out months after our house was built as a "spot check" to audit the claims of the builder, and our house was one of the highest levels they had tested.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
They're also taking into account unknown breakthroughs in PV and storage technology that haven't happened yet. And may not happen.
They're also NOT questioning the life cycle of the equipment either.
Are we REALLY going to be able to handle the waste from a disposable power industry?
With nuclear, the waste is Really Bad Shit. But it's HIGHLY CONCENTRATED Really Bad Shit.
To power the entire country, we'd effectively have to blanket the state of Nevada in PV panels.
Average size of a PV panel is 65 inches x 39 inches (2535 square inches or 1.635 square meters)
The area of Nevada is about 286,382 square kilometers)
1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometer
So we're talking about 611,620 solar panels per square kilometer.
So, assuming some area in Nevada isn't suitable for putting down panels, we'll reduce the area to 200,000 square kilometers.
122,324,000,000 panels
An average panel's about 40 lbs.
So, overall, the weight of just the panels is going to be something in the neighborhood of 2,446,480,000 TONS.
Are we ready to toss out two and a half gigatons of trash every 20-30 years?
And this doesn't even take into account the 10-20 year cycle of battery-based power storage.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Awesome!
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Okay, a little more reading and it appears that with battery backup and special inverters, you CAN continue using power during a grid dropout.
Most of the systems I'd seen prior to this were essentially a THIRD bank of batteries (much smaller, think "GIANT UPS*) with some intelligent equipment to handle the cut-over. Last I'd checked on that, it's NOT a DIY thing and not cheap.
I consider myself corrected.
Thank you.
Hats off to you, good sir. Not many people on the Internet are willing to admit any amount of fallibility (though of course we're all fallible).
...and for the record, I didn't know that, either. I merely suspected it was the case. Thank you for confirming.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Hats off to you, good sir. Not many people on the Internet are willing to admit any amount of fallibility (though of course we're all fallible).
...and for the record, I didn't know that, either. I merely suspected it was the case. Thank you for confirming.
On re-reading, I will disagree about one thing.
Investment "speeding up" development.
There are times when simply throwing money at something will not get you results.
Battery capacitance mediums are one of those.
I mean, yes, there's lots of things you can do to raise the efficiency of a battery in the lab (carbon nanotubes, various coatings on the anode, etc). But most of those fall into the purview of "Expensive As Fuck And Impractical".
Some of these dedicated batteries for battery banks are $1-2000 a pop. Increasing the price by a factor of 15, even if the result is 25% better, REALLY doesn't help.
So could farts, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Why is it that all the people so adamant about population control refuse to take that first step themselves?
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
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.
View attachment 55993
The country's turning dystopian as is, could be worse, at least the above wont give your towns cancer or black lung:
Taken from a developmental shithole area I moved away from after 15 years thankfully.
Well, I'm not an engineer, so I can't comment intelligently on that. I just tend to trust human ingenuity, so I tend to see solutions in terms of lining up the incentives.
Not that it really matters from the point-of-view of argument validity, but: You know this...how? Perhaps that posted has chosen to not have children? Or are you suggesting time travel to prevent oneself form being born?
Umm, there is a more immediate "corrective" action one could take if one truly believes that extra people are the problem. Of course, like all socialist dreams, perhaps they believe it is the OTHER people who are the problem.
Umm, there is a more immediate "corrective" action one could take if one truly believes that extra people are the problem. Of course, like all socialist dreams, perhaps they believe it is the OTHER people who are the problem.
"You've haven't killed yourself, therefore your argument is invalid"?
Yes, clearly the issue here is "socialist dreams."
Last edited:
True...but this time, it is wrong.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
What? Why does wind power need huge subsidies if it's cheaper? Tax payers pay 5 dollars subsidies for every 1 dollar that wind power earns from the electricity trade market. Actually the wind farmers earn the most money when there's no wind.
You are correct: It is absolutely not cheaper.
I would argue that the reason it isn't cheaper is because we're ignoring the cost to the environment, but that's kinda beside the point.
No it's not. It's about maximizing the short term profitability of current resources. It's only "best" for whoever gets paid in the here and now. The future impacts aren't necessarily calculated and the environmental impact is usually left out of the picture entirely. If I have 100 acres of forest with an active ecosystem in it, that doesn't make me any money. If I cut all that down, I can not only sell all the lumber, I can then use it as grazeland for cattle or get paid by a company who wants to mine it for mineral use. Nevermind if that forest may have been having a positive effect on the air quality, or contain plants used for medicinal purposes, game for people to hunt, all kinds of subtle benefits. I cut that shit down and got paid and now my standard of living is better, even though that marginalizes the ecosystem slightly for future descendants. Repeat that millions of time and it starts threatening global sustainability. Some capitalists operate sustainably, a whole hell of a lot don't. The ones that don't have a bigger long term impact than the ones that do.
Why bring up socialism? Socialism can be just as bad. The point is where the priorities of a system lie. Capitalism at its core is monetize everything to the point of exhaustion. Socialism at is core is to let the government make decisions for the good of the people and keep its fingers crossed it doesn't get corrupted, which seems to happen in everything these days.
And where did I say otherwise? I'm saying out of all the things to criticize wind and solar on the "sightliness" is a joke compared to something like coal.
Companies that only consider short term profitability, usually fail in the end. Now days forests (owned by companies) are harvested and replanted, just like any other crop.
Any company engaging in dumping pollutants will be punished by the market place.
If someone owns the land and it's zoned for grazing then it's their right to cut down trees. Why should they have to leave their property undeveloped so other people can use it?
As for the eco system, it's just as possible that instead of some magical medicinal plant, researchers could find some toxic plant to turn into a chemical weapon.
If you want land to remain a forest, then buy it. Consider it an investment in your active ecosystem.
There are some environments groups that have down this, buying what they consider important habitat and then donating it to the state. That's a much better solution that have the state forcibly take the property from the owner.
As for bringing up socialism, it's because too many people seem to think that socialism is the answer.
They ignore how much damage and misery socialism causes and how many millions have died because of it.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
True enough. I probably should have found a better way to drop the info into the conversation.
Mea culpa.
Well you're certainly making the case that this is a FAITH based system. Everything you're saying can have the word "sometimes" tacked onto it. Companies polluting are only punished in the marketplace so long as they're caught AND their customers are concerned about the results. If you buy a spatula that was made from steel in China which polluted the air all to hell with smelting it in and contributed to millions of their deaths, is that something you would even think about? Probably not, you'd be too many times disconnected from the origin and you're not even presented with the information to begin with. It might not even be assembled in China, and have a "made in USA" stamp instead using imported steel. Companies pollute all the time in a way that is very profitable to them, it all depends on how stringent the laws are and if they're even detected. Right now DuPont is under investigation for releasing cancer-causing chemicals into the Ohio river for over 50 years. That's almost a lifetime of pollution that they've profited from. They're hardly the outlier.
As for forests, globally, we're still massively losing forest each year and it's primarily by cattle ranchers and timber companies, it's pure capitalism at work. Forest is not "just like any other crop." Some of these ecosystems are millions of years old, not 1. Treating it like "any other crop" is likely why we've had a massive dieoff of wildlife over the past 40-50 years. In any event, deforestation was only being used as an example of how capitalism does fuckall to prevent it as a whole. Again, overfishing, ocean pollution, air, soil, and groundwater pollution is all incentivized under capitalism so long as the profits outweigh the short to medium-term consequences. Some companies are responsible, many are not. The ones that aren't can have impacts left for centuries.
You're pretty much proving my point that it's not taking into account environmental considerations or the needs of future descendants. Some systems try to factor in how their decisions will affect the next seven generations. Capitalism is not one of them.nutzo said:
Are you honestly arguing that it's better to clearcut all forest just in case they may contain a toxic plant that could be used as a weapon? That logic is beyond what I thought anyone would bring to the table, got me there.nutzo said:
1. That requires people with money. 2. Even if I did, that will work just fine until I'm dead, then it goes back to being unprotected. Even the state is no guarantee, we're currently opening up previously protected land to be sold off.nutzo said:
In other words, it's a non-solution, since it requires people with money to make a significant impact, and the people with the most money often benefit from resource exploitation which leads to them being threatened in the first place. It's a perfect circle.nutzo said:
My bold. No. Capitalism is to allow money to flow freely. How does money flow? When people decide to spend it. How does it flow freely? When every individual is free to spend their money as they see fit.
Socialism means that your best interest has to be subsumed what someone else (or multiple someones) determines is best for the group...not necessarily for you. Every socialist endeavor ever started has ended in misery and disaster. The most current example is the bountiful country of Venezuela...brought to its knees.
Note that most socialists immediately call capitalists evil and corrupt, yet socialist leaders (who, as tyrannists wield far more power than any "capitalist") are assumed to operate for the greater good. It doesn't work that way. The stereotype of the greedy captain of industry representing all capitalists is a trope used to diminish the true power of freedom of choice when the masses can do so. In socialist systems, some elite group (or individual) has to be at the top of the pyramid to determine how resources will be allocated. It's a great system...if you're on the top of that pyramid.
I am a proud capitalist. I am not greedy or evil. Nor do I monetize everything. Nor do I look only at short-term gains. If my outlook and actions are "wrong" or go against the better path of society as a whole, my actions are drowned out by the actions of the other capitalists. Free market and the invisible hand push towards the best solution. Millions of capitalists, just like me, create the free market which is the most powerful force for innovation, efficiency, social awareness, and improved standard of living.
Just saying.
Because congress does not understand what exponential means.
If your proposition were true the US midwest would have the highest electricity prices. But they dont, they pay the average 12 cents per kw.
Why is Germany's prices so high? Taxes
https://www.windpowerengineering.com/blog/blame-taxes-not-renewable-energy-high-power-costs-germany/
Yes some of these taxes pay for the rapid buildout of wind farms - what the majority of Germans want. That's in contrast to the midwest which is going slower but keeping costs static
I'd like to see these figures you labored over and how nuclear can beat out wind at 1.8 cents per kWh which was bid here in northern Colorado
Last edited:
SnowBeast
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,312
Energy companies are fighting against better technology because it takes the power literally out of their hands. This was over 8 years ago:
When I watched this way back then, all I could think about is when this dude is going to accidentally shoot himself in the back of the head or hit his head on a curb....twice.
When I watched this way back then, all I could think about is when this dude is going to accidentally shoot himself in the back of the head or hit his head on a curb....twice.