Renewable Energy Will Never Supply Our Needs?

Steve G

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,128
1,376
1

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

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,328
36,244
1

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.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1

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

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,872
58,313
1

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,194
1,269
1

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

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,089
5,263
1
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.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
26,452
39,753
1

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjbankos

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,194
1,269
1
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

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2001
19,123
19,117
1
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

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2006
58,848
36,894
1

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.
 

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
16,042
5,490
1
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?
 
Last edited:

gjbankos

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2006
58,848
36,894
1
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

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,343
8,144
1
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,872
58,313
1
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,089
5,263
1
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,872
58,313
1
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....
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
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

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2008
2,550
2,647
1
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

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,089
5,263
1
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.​

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.

 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

DJ Spanky

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2001
905
1,400
1
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

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,174
56,031
1
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

LMTLION

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2008
2,550
2,647
1
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.​

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.

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

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,089
5,263
1
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

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,328
36,244
1
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.​

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.

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

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,742
1
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.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,522
23,655
1
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

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,230
5,458
1
Nuclear fusion may become possible soon. Then there will be a move to that new green energy source.