Frozen wind turbines hamper Texas power output

[Moonglow]

Oil and gas can't be extracted when frozen so the prices are gonna get higher but you can just blame Biden or the green energy sector.

if everything that happened then was trumps fault then everything that happens now is bidens fault,,

thats equity for ya,,,

I don't remember chiding Trump once over gas prices since I know they fluctuate because they just do..

since when is it all about you???

It is every damn day.

thats funny,, other than talking with you here, youre irrelevant in my world,,,

Get yer finger out of yer azz then.

 

[progressive hunter]

Super Arrogance Alert!!!!
Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

The former governor’s made the comments as 2.7m Texans are without power

www.yahoo.com

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texans would rather continue to freeze in their homes without electricity than to allow the federal government more involvement in the state's energy grid.

“Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” Mr Perry said on a blog on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's website.


Just think: they can tell that at the eulogies of those that died from the cold weather.

I agree with him,, a few days/weeks of cold weather is far better than a government leash,,,

 

[surada]

Super Arrogance Alert!!!!
Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

The former governor’s made the comments as 2.7m Texans are without power

www.yahoo.com

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texans would rather continue to freeze in their homes without electricity than to allow the federal government more involvement in the state's energy grid.

“Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” Mr Perry said on a blog on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's website.


Just think: they can tell that at the eulogies of those that died from the cold weather.

I agree with him,, a few days/weeks of cold weather is far better than a government leash,,,

They screwed up.

ERCOT Needs To Better Winterize Power Grid & Add Capacity, SMU Energy Expert Says

 

[Moonglow]

Super Arrogance Alert!!!!
Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

The former governor’s made the comments as 2.7m Texans are without power

www.yahoo.com

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texans would rather continue to freeze in their homes without electricity than to allow the federal government more involvement in the state's energy grid.

“Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” Mr Perry said on a blog on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's website.


Just think: they can tell that at the eulogies of those that died from the cold weather.

I agree with him,, a few days/weeks of cold weather is far better than a government leash,,,

Is that what you will tell the family of the people that died because of the hard-ass 'tude?

 

[progressive hunter]

Super Arrogance Alert!!!!
Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

The former governor’s made the comments as 2.7m Texans are without power

www.yahoo.com

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texans would rather continue to freeze in their homes without electricity than to allow the federal government more involvement in the state's energy grid.

“Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” Mr Perry said on a blog on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's website.


Just think: they can tell that at the eulogies of those that died from the cold weather.

I agree with him,, a few days/weeks of cold weather is far better than a government leash,,,

Is that what you will tell the family of the people that died because of the hard-ass 'tude?

yep,,,
not sure how a government leash is going to save them,, and no reason the state cant deal with it itself,,, being dependent on outsiders isnt sustainable,,

 

[DudleySmith]

Why didn't the govt in texas spend the $ to deal with weather like this? Sounds like a complete lack of planning. Any power generating facility should be able to withstand cold temps.

Public utilities were 'privatized' decades ago. that means they just tripled the prices and cut spending on maintenance and replacing old infrastructure that depreciated over time. Then, when they can't get taxpayers to cough up free money for them, they whine about 'govt. regulations n stuff' and blame it all on somebody else, the usual spiel from right wing laissez faire fantasists.

The fact is, like with gasoline refineries, they can just declare 'shortages' and raise prices and make bigger profits if they don't build new capacity, the same reasons rural electrification became an FDR program.

 

[flacaltenn]

Maine buys a quarter of its electricity from Canada, but of that generated by Maine, about 25% is wind power. I hunted to see if they had trouble with their wind turbines in the winter and didn't find anything. I did find one article mentioning that their efficiency can increase from an average of about 42% to 60% in the winter due to strong north westerlies.

In 2019, about four-fifths of Maine's electricity net generation came from renewable sources. About three-tenths of the state’s total net generation came from hydroelectric dams, one-fourth was fueled by biomass, and nearly one-fourth was provided by wind turbines. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of state generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades. A small amount of Maine’s net generation, a total of about 2%, came from solar power, petroleum-fueled, and coal-fired power plants. Another 3% of Maine’s net generation is from facilities that primarily burn black liquor waste from pulp mills or municipal and other solid waste materials....
Maine's power supply has undergone a substantial shift since the early 1990s, when more than three-tenths of the state’s net generation typically came from the Maine Yankee nuclear power station and another one-fifth, on average, from petroleum-fired facilities. The Maine Yankee nuclear plant was decommissioned in 1997, and petroleum-fueled generation has decreased from as much as 37% of net generation in the late 1990s to less than 1% in 2019.

I hate to break it to you, FCT, but we're doing just fine without petroleum fueled power. As a consumer, I can tell you we don't have problems with not enough power, although most of it is from renewable sources. Not every state has as many rivers or trees as we do, but if we can do it, anyone can, using their own resources. It doesn't mean disaster to use renewable energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

First of all, the EIA summary is talking about percentages for only the power generated in Maine. When you do these percentages as a TOTAL -- they change as they should taking into account that Maine is DEBTOR state with an 25% IMPORT from Canada. Not using that disparagingly. Just stating that maybe that's a good financial move.. (the 25% import, may not exist. You might have seen this number as the % of Hydro imported from Canada, See below)

It's not clear that your 1st sentence is correct, because what I can find says that Maine is about equal on electricity imports and exports anyways.

Let's look at this from Wikimedia commons. It's the latest pie chart i can find on short notice..

KUDOS on cutting back the almost 20% reliance on HEAVY Petroleum generators and coal from 1990s.. A step in the right direction. But your statement that you are not reliant on "fossil fuels" doesnt' recognize Nat Gas as the fossil fuel it is. But it's much cleaner than coal or fuel oil.

Maine is a unique situation because of the abundance of hydro.. And you can GET MORE hydro from Canada if needed and it's available to be sent. This is NOT a "normal" option for MOST of the rest of the USA. Hydro is a stored power source in itself and can be used to "dance in opposite synchrony" with sketchy and unreliable and unschedulable wind investments. Just like I showed in my graph of daily production in Texas ERCOT. It's not a "fast reaction" counter to wind, since you can't change the flow over a dam in minutes or maybe even hours. So Nat Gas will ALWAYS be required to back the wind component up... When in reality, those same nat gas plants could be used SOLELY without the wind investment at all. So the cost of wind of Maine is to have TWO PLANTS when you only need one.. And if you need increased demand. BOTH need to increase. Not just the wind component..

But that huge HYDRO component allows some real savings in CO2 emission ONLY BECAUSE of the dominant hydro component. APPARENTLY -- the strategy for future power to Maine is to rely on MORE IMPORTS of hydro from Canada. But realize that although hydro is listed as a "renewable", it is no longer in favor with the eco-greens and faces much opposition to building NEW dams and even transmission lines. See the following for the dirt..

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate? • The Revelator

Again, the only places in the US that can DO this to any great scale is upper New England, the US Northwest, and in part as an more expensive option for California, Nevada, Arizona..

The Biomass component component of that Pie chart is a eco-disaster. The real pollution from these facilities is substantial.. And Maine might have a great supply "waste wood", but nowadays, there's no such thing as "waste wood" in logging and lumbering.. So additional trees are being cut or they are burning recycled cardboard, tires or god knows what that other Biomass use..

And the solar is a joke. No one above the Mason Dixon line is gonna get any grid scale benefit from solar. It's more of a loyalty pledge to placate idiots.

Sorry for long reply.. But you asked and I take this seriously.. Especially since one of the two articles I have in production right now is entitled "Wind and Solar are Supplements -- Not Alternatives". LOL.... And I've spent most of Jan-Feb getting my research for the piece together..

 

[Pogo]

A helicopter running on fossil fuel spraying a chemical made from fossil fuels onto a wind turbine made with fossils fuels during an ice storm is awesome.

View attachment 457666

Frozen wind turbines hamper Texas power output, state's electric grid operator says

Texas grid operators urge conservation as frozen wind turbines freeze up electric generation.

www.statesman.com

According to Lefties, this is called progress.

I'm pretty sure it's called "ice".

 

[flacaltenn]

Oil and gas can't be extracted when frozen so the prices are gonna get higher but you can just blame Biden or the green energy sector.

The winter stock of Nat gas is STORED by September or so.. That's not an excuse. You didn't read what I wrote about "shutting down" the nat gas plants to TAKE solar and wind contributing to nat gas feed lines and the machinery itself freezing up....

 

[OldLady]

Maine buys a quarter of its electricity from Canada, but of that generated by Maine, about 25% is wind power. I hunted to see if they had trouble with their wind turbines in the winter and didn't find anything. I did find one article mentioning that their efficiency can increase from an average of about 42% to 60% in the winter due to strong north westerlies.

In 2019, about four-fifths of Maine's electricity net generation came from renewable sources. About three-tenths of the state’s total net generation came from hydroelectric dams, one-fourth was fueled by biomass, and nearly one-fourth was provided by wind turbines. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of state generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades. A small amount of Maine’s net generation, a total of about 2%, came from solar power, petroleum-fueled, and coal-fired power plants. Another 3% of Maine’s net generation is from facilities that primarily burn black liquor waste from pulp mills or municipal and other solid waste materials....
Maine's power supply has undergone a substantial shift since the early 1990s, when more than three-tenths of the state’s net generation typically came from the Maine Yankee nuclear power station and another one-fifth, on average, from petroleum-fired facilities. The Maine Yankee nuclear plant was decommissioned in 1997, and petroleum-fueled generation has decreased from as much as 37% of net generation in the late 1990s to less than 1% in 2019.

I hate to break it to you, FCT, but we're doing just fine without petroleum fueled power. As a consumer, I can tell you we don't have problems with not enough power, although most of it is from renewable sources. Not every state has as many rivers or trees as we do, but if we can do it, anyone can, using their own resources. It doesn't mean disaster to use renewable energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

First of all, the EIA summary is talking about percentages for only the power generated in Maine. When you do these percentages as a TOTAL -- they change as they should taking into account that Maine is DEBTOR state with an 25% IMPORT from Canada. Not using that disparagingly. Just stating that maybe that's a good financial move.. (the 25% import, may not exist. You might have seen this number as the % of Hydro imported from Canada, See below)

It's not clear that your 1st sentence is correct, because what I can find says that Maine is about equal on electricity imports and exports anyways.

Let's look at this from Wikimedia commons. It's the latest pie chart i can find on short notice..

KUDOS on cutting back the almost 20% reliance on HEAVY Petroleum generators and coal from 1990s.. A step in the right direction. But your statement that you are not reliant on "fossil fuels" doesnt' recognize Nat Gas as the fossil fuel it is. But it's much cleaner than coal or fuel oil.

Maine is a unique situation because of the abundance of hydro.. And you can GET MORE hydro from Canada if needed and it's available to be sent. This is NOT a "normal" option for MOST of the rest of the USA. Hydro is a stored power source in itself and can be used to "dance in opposite synchrony" with sketchy and unreliable and unschedulable wind investments. Just like I showed in my graph of daily production in Texas ERCOT. It's not a "fast reaction" counter to wind, since you can't change the flow over a dam in minutes or maybe even hours. So Nat Gas will ALWAYS be required to back the wind component up... When in reality, those same nat gas plants could be used SOLELY without the wind investment at all. So the cost of wind of Maine is to have TWO PLANTS when you only need one.. And if you need increased demand. BOTH need to increase. Not just the wind component..

But that huge HYDRO component allows some real savings in CO2 emission ONLY BECAUSE of the dominant hydro component. APPARENTLY -- the strategy for future power to Maine is to rely on MORE IMPORTS of hydro from Canada. But realize that although hydro is listed as a "renewable", it is no longer in favor with the eco-greens and faces much opposition to building NEW dams and even transmission lines. See the following for the dirt..

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate? • The Revelator

Again, the only places in the US that can DO this to any great scale is upper New England, the US Northwest, and in part as an more expensive option for California, Nevada, Arizona..

The Biomass component component of that Pie chart is a eco-disaster. The real pollution from these facilities is substantial.. And Maine might have a great supply "waste wood", but nowadays, there's no such thing as "waste wood" in logging and lumbering.. So additional trees are being cut or they are burning recycled cardboard, tires or god knows what that other Biomass use..

And the solar is a joke. No one above the Mason Dixon line is gonna get any grid scale benefit from solar. It's more of a loyalty pledge to placate idiots.

Sorry for long reply.. But you asked and I take this seriously.. Especially since one of the two articles I have in production right now is entitled "Wind and Solar are Supplements -- Not Alternatives". LOL.... And I've spent most of Jan-Feb getting my research for the piece together..

I'm disappointed you chose to base your response on 2014 stats when I gave you information from 2019. My point is, it is working without interruption through our long cold winters, and only with 17% natural gas, not 33 as your outdated pie chart shows. I agree we are lucky to have hydroelectric. Btw, taking into account the energy we buy from Canada, wind energy is 14% of the total, similar to Texas.

 

[flacaltenn]

A helicopter running on fossil fuel spraying a chemical made from fossil fuels onto a wind turbine made with fossils fuels during an ice storm is awesome.

View attachment 457666

Frozen wind turbines hamper Texas power output, state's electric grid operator says

Texas grid operators urge conservation as frozen wind turbines freeze up electric generation.

www.statesman.com

except it wasn't so. that footage is from 2014 in Sweden. fake news from MSM yet again.

Viral Image of Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbine Is From Sweden

In the midst of a record cold snap where Texas’ grid has failed to meet demand, misinformation is running rampant. Among the most pernicious memes propagating online are that Texas’ wind turbines have frozen and that that has led to the blackout.

earther.gizmodo.com

Everybody knew that helicopter shot was from 2014.

Texas problem was they failed to use antifreeze. Texans get less than 20% of their power from wind turbines. The Republicans are looking to blame someone other than themselves. The power grid is privatized by fat cats.

Yeah.. The "fat cats" now are Big Wind and Big Solar... The circus has come to town..

 

[Sunsettommy]

Super Arrogance Alert!!!!
Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

The former governor’s made the comments as 2.7m Texans are without power

www.yahoo.com

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texans would rather continue to freeze in their homes without electricity than to allow the federal government more involvement in the state's energy grid.

“Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” Mr Perry said on a blog on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's website.


Just think: they can tell that at the eulogies of those that died from the cold weather.

I agree with him,, a few days/weeks of cold weather is far better than a government leash,,,

They screwed up.

ERCOT Needs To Better Winterize Power Grid & Add Capacity, SMU Energy Expert Says

He he he.....

The problem exist BECAUSE of Wind power and Solar power, without them the power problem would be little to none.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Maine buys a quarter of its electricity from Canada, but of that generated by Maine, about 25% is wind power. I hunted to see if they had trouble with their wind turbines in the winter and didn't find anything. I did find one article mentioning that their efficiency can increase from an average of about 42% to 60% in the winter due to strong north westerlies.

In 2019, about four-fifths of Maine's electricity net generation came from renewable sources. About three-tenths of the state’s total net generation came from hydroelectric dams, one-fourth was fueled by biomass, and nearly one-fourth was provided by wind turbines. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of state generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades. A small amount of Maine’s net generation, a total of about 2%, came from solar power, petroleum-fueled, and coal-fired power plants. Another 3% of Maine’s net generation is from facilities that primarily burn black liquor waste from pulp mills or municipal and other solid waste materials....
Maine's power supply has undergone a substantial shift since the early 1990s, when more than three-tenths of the state’s net generation typically came from the Maine Yankee nuclear power station and another one-fifth, on average, from petroleum-fired facilities. The Maine Yankee nuclear plant was decommissioned in 1997, and petroleum-fueled generation has decreased from as much as 37% of net generation in the late 1990s to less than 1% in 2019.

I hate to break it to you, FCT, but we're doing just fine without petroleum fueled power. As a consumer, I can tell you we don't have problems with not enough power, although most of it is from renewable sources. Not every state has as many rivers or trees as we do, but if we can do it, anyone can, using their own resources. It doesn't mean disaster to use renewable energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

First of all, the EIA summary is talking about percentages for only the power generated in Maine. When you do these percentages as a TOTAL -- they change as they should taking into account that Maine is DEBTOR state with an 25% IMPORT from Canada. Not using that disparagingly. Just stating that maybe that's a good financial move.. (the 25% import, may not exist. You might have seen this number as the % of Hydro imported from Canada, See below)

It's not clear that your 1st sentence is correct, because what I can find says that Maine is about equal on electricity imports and exports anyways.

Let's look at this from Wikimedia commons. It's the latest pie chart i can find on short notice..

KUDOS on cutting back the almost 20% reliance on HEAVY Petroleum generators and coal from 1990s.. A step in the right direction. But your statement that you are not reliant on "fossil fuels" doesnt' recognize Nat Gas as the fossil fuel it is. But it's much cleaner than coal or fuel oil.

Maine is a unique situation because of the abundance of hydro.. And you can GET MORE hydro from Canada if needed and it's available to be sent. This is NOT a "normal" option for MOST of the rest of the USA. Hydro is a stored power source in itself and can be used to "dance in opposite synchrony" with sketchy and unreliable and unschedulable wind investments. Just like I showed in my graph of daily production in Texas ERCOT. It's not a "fast reaction" counter to wind, since you can't change the flow over a dam in minutes or maybe even hours. So Nat Gas will ALWAYS be required to back the wind component up... When in reality, those same nat gas plants could be used SOLELY without the wind investment at all. So the cost of wind of Maine is to have TWO PLANTS when you only need one.. And if you need increased demand. BOTH need to increase. Not just the wind component..

But that huge HYDRO component allows some real savings in CO2 emission ONLY BECAUSE of the dominant hydro component. APPARENTLY -- the strategy for future power to Maine is to rely on MORE IMPORTS of hydro from Canada. But realize that although hydro is listed as a "renewable", it is no longer in favor with the eco-greens and faces much opposition to building NEW dams and even transmission lines. See the following for the dirt..

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate? • The Revelator

Again, the only places in the US that can DO this to any great scale is upper New England, the US Northwest, and in part as an more expensive option for California, Nevada, Arizona..

The Biomass component component of that Pie chart is a eco-disaster. The real pollution from these facilities is substantial.. And Maine might have a great supply "waste wood", but nowadays, there's no such thing as "waste wood" in logging and lumbering.. So additional trees are being cut or they are burning recycled cardboard, tires or god knows what that other Biomass use..

And the solar is a joke. No one above the Mason Dixon line is gonna get any grid scale benefit from solar. It's more of a loyalty pledge to placate idiots.

Sorry for long reply.. But you asked and I take this seriously.. Especially since one of the two articles I have in production right now is entitled "Wind and Solar are Supplements -- Not Alternatives". LOL.... And I've spent most of Jan-Feb getting my research for the piece together..

I agree Solar is not a lone solution for States in the North nor should it be consider as a viable solution on it own but a supplemental solution to make sure that there is more than one renewable source all year long.

States like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California ( in the south ) and Texas can and should invest into Solar farms along with Wind and clean Nuclear because those States can produce the needed amount.

I also still believe we can build buildings with renewable ways from the non-opening glass being Solar panels to the skyscrapers being used as wind farms along with catching rain to be used fo toilets and so on.

I mean if a simpleton like myself can see this it make me ask why on Earth we as a nation can not focus on doing all this?

Also let me write that Hydro Electric is a solid option along with natural gas but so many people want it one way or the other and not working from all ends of the spectrum.

People must understand we can not go completely green and we can not stay completely fossil either and we must work on having a mix as I repeated again...

Oh well because nothing will be done and I am still waiting for my lights to come back on...

 

[flacaltenn]

Maine buys a quarter of its electricity from Canada, but of that generated by Maine, about 25% is wind power. I hunted to see if they had trouble with their wind turbines in the winter and didn't find anything. I did find one article mentioning that their efficiency can increase from an average of about 42% to 60% in the winter due to strong north westerlies.

In 2019, about four-fifths of Maine's electricity net generation came from renewable sources. About three-tenths of the state’s total net generation came from hydroelectric dams, one-fourth was fueled by biomass, and nearly one-fourth was provided by wind turbines. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of state generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades. A small amount of Maine’s net generation, a total of about 2%, came from solar power, petroleum-fueled, and coal-fired power plants. Another 3% of Maine’s net generation is from facilities that primarily burn black liquor waste from pulp mills or municipal and other solid waste materials....
Maine's power supply has undergone a substantial shift since the early 1990s, when more than three-tenths of the state’s net generation typically came from the Maine Yankee nuclear power station and another one-fifth, on average, from petroleum-fired facilities. The Maine Yankee nuclear plant was decommissioned in 1997, and petroleum-fueled generation has decreased from as much as 37% of net generation in the late 1990s to less than 1% in 2019.

I hate to break it to you, FCT, but we're doing just fine without petroleum fueled power. As a consumer, I can tell you we don't have problems with not enough power, although most of it is from renewable sources. Not every state has as many rivers or trees as we do, but if we can do it, anyone can, using their own resources. It doesn't mean disaster to use renewable energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

First of all, the EIA summary is talking about percentages for only the power generated in Maine. When you do these percentages as a TOTAL -- they change as they should taking into account that Maine is DEBTOR state with an 25% IMPORT from Canada. Not using that disparagingly. Just stating that maybe that's a good financial move.. (the 25% import, may not exist. You might have seen this number as the % of Hydro imported from Canada, See below)

It's not clear that your 1st sentence is correct, because what I can find says that Maine is about equal on electricity imports and exports anyways.

Let's look at this from Wikimedia commons. It's the latest pie chart i can find on short notice..

KUDOS on cutting back the almost 20% reliance on HEAVY Petroleum generators and coal from 1990s.. A step in the right direction. But your statement that you are not reliant on "fossil fuels" doesnt' recognize Nat Gas as the fossil fuel it is. But it's much cleaner than coal or fuel oil.

Maine is a unique situation because of the abundance of hydro.. And you can GET MORE hydro from Canada if needed and it's available to be sent. This is NOT a "normal" option for MOST of the rest of the USA. Hydro is a stored power source in itself and can be used to "dance in opposite synchrony" with sketchy and unreliable and unschedulable wind investments. Just like I showed in my graph of daily production in Texas ERCOT. It's not a "fast reaction" counter to wind, since you can't change the flow over a dam in minutes or maybe even hours. So Nat Gas will ALWAYS be required to back the wind component up... When in reality, those same nat gas plants could be used SOLELY without the wind investment at all. So the cost of wind of Maine is to have TWO PLANTS when you only need one.. And if you need increased demand. BOTH need to increase. Not just the wind component..

But that huge HYDRO component allows some real savings in CO2 emission ONLY BECAUSE of the dominant hydro component. APPARENTLY -- the strategy for future power to Maine is to rely on MORE IMPORTS of hydro from Canada. But realize that although hydro is listed as a "renewable", it is no longer in favor with the eco-greens and faces much opposition to building NEW dams and even transmission lines. See the following for the dirt..

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate? • The Revelator

Again, the only places in the US that can DO this to any great scale is upper New England, the US Northwest, and in part as an more expensive option for California, Nevada, Arizona..

The Biomass component component of that Pie chart is a eco-disaster. The real pollution from these facilities is substantial.. And Maine might have a great supply "waste wood", but nowadays, there's no such thing as "waste wood" in logging and lumbering.. So additional trees are being cut or they are burning recycled cardboard, tires or god knows what that other Biomass use..

And the solar is a joke. No one above the Mason Dixon line is gonna get any grid scale benefit from solar. It's more of a loyalty pledge to placate idiots.

Sorry for long reply.. But you asked and I take this seriously.. Especially since one of the two articles I have in production right now is entitled "Wind and Solar are Supplements -- Not Alternatives". LOL.... And I've spent most of Jan-Feb getting my research for the piece together..

I'm disappointed you chose to base your response on 2014 stats when I gave you information from 2019. My point is, it is working without interruption through our long cold winters, and only with 17% natural gas, not 33 as your outdated pie chart shows. I agree we are lucky to have hydroelectric. Btw, taking into account the energy we buy from Canada, wind energy is 14% of the total, similar to Texas.

Things dont change that quickly in generation, The massive increases in Maine have come mostly by building transmission lines into Canada to suck off their hydro.. And what percentage is NOW Biomass? You need to add up to 100% percent..

My bet is -- the folks up there came to their senses and decommissioned that huge percentage of garbage incinerators due to complaints from damn near everybody.. It was sold as EXTREMELY GREEN and renewable -- but it never was... Along with the sketchy investment in Maine solar: What a waste of time and money eh????

 

[OldLady]

Maine buys a quarter of its electricity from Canada, but of that generated by Maine, about 25% is wind power. I hunted to see if they had trouble with their wind turbines in the winter and didn't find anything. I did find one article mentioning that their efficiency can increase from an average of about 42% to 60% in the winter due to strong north westerlies.

In 2019, about four-fifths of Maine's electricity net generation came from renewable sources. About three-tenths of the state’s total net generation came from hydroelectric dams, one-fourth was fueled by biomass, and nearly one-fourth was provided by wind turbines. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of state generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades. A small amount of Maine’s net generation, a total of about 2%, came from solar power, petroleum-fueled, and coal-fired power plants. Another 3% of Maine’s net generation is from facilities that primarily burn black liquor waste from pulp mills or municipal and other solid waste materials....
Maine's power supply has undergone a substantial shift since the early 1990s, when more than three-tenths of the state’s net generation typically came from the Maine Yankee nuclear power station and another one-fifth, on average, from petroleum-fired facilities. The Maine Yankee nuclear plant was decommissioned in 1997, and petroleum-fueled generation has decreased from as much as 37% of net generation in the late 1990s to less than 1% in 2019.

I hate to break it to you, FCT, but we're doing just fine without petroleum fueled power. As a consumer, I can tell you we don't have problems with not enough power, although most of it is from renewable sources. Not every state has as many rivers or trees as we do, but if we can do it, anyone can, using their own resources. It doesn't mean disaster to use renewable energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

First of all, the EIA summary is talking about percentages for only the power generated in Maine. When you do these percentages as a TOTAL -- they change as they should taking into account that Maine is DEBTOR state with an 25% IMPORT from Canada. Not using that disparagingly. Just stating that maybe that's a good financial move.. (the 25% import, may not exist. You might have seen this number as the % of Hydro imported from Canada, See below)

It's not clear that your 1st sentence is correct, because what I can find says that Maine is about equal on electricity imports and exports anyways.

Let's look at this from Wikimedia commons. It's the latest pie chart i can find on short notice..

KUDOS on cutting back the almost 20% reliance on HEAVY Petroleum generators and coal from 1990s.. A step in the right direction. But your statement that you are not reliant on "fossil fuels" doesnt' recognize Nat Gas as the fossil fuel it is. But it's much cleaner than coal or fuel oil.

Maine is a unique situation because of the abundance of hydro.. And you can GET MORE hydro from Canada if needed and it's available to be sent. This is NOT a "normal" option for MOST of the rest of the USA. Hydro is a stored power source in itself and can be used to "dance in opposite synchrony" with sketchy and unreliable and unschedulable wind investments. Just like I showed in my graph of daily production in Texas ERCOT. It's not a "fast reaction" counter to wind, since you can't change the flow over a dam in minutes or maybe even hours. So Nat Gas will ALWAYS be required to back the wind component up... When in reality, those same nat gas plants could be used SOLELY without the wind investment at all. So the cost of wind of Maine is to have TWO PLANTS when you only need one.. And if you need increased demand. BOTH need to increase. Not just the wind component..

But that huge HYDRO component allows some real savings in CO2 emission ONLY BECAUSE of the dominant hydro component. APPARENTLY -- the strategy for future power to Maine is to rely on MORE IMPORTS of hydro from Canada. But realize that although hydro is listed as a "renewable", it is no longer in favor with the eco-greens and faces much opposition to building NEW dams and even transmission lines. See the following for the dirt..

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate? • The Revelator

Again, the only places in the US that can DO this to any great scale is upper New England, the US Northwest, and in part as an more expensive option for California, Nevada, Arizona..

The Biomass component component of that Pie chart is a eco-disaster. The real pollution from these facilities is substantial.. And Maine might have a great supply "waste wood", but nowadays, there's no such thing as "waste wood" in logging and lumbering.. So additional trees are being cut or they are burning recycled cardboard, tires or god knows what that other Biomass use..

And the solar is a joke. No one above the Mason Dixon line is gonna get any grid scale benefit from solar. It's more of a loyalty pledge to placate idiots.

Sorry for long reply.. But you asked and I take this seriously.. Especially since one of the two articles I have in production right now is entitled "Wind and Solar are Supplements -- Not Alternatives". LOL.... And I've spent most of Jan-Feb getting my research for the piece together..

I'm disappointed you chose to base your response on 2014 stats when I gave you information from 2019. My point is, it is working without interruption through our long cold winters, and only with 17% natural gas, not 33 as your outdated pie chart shows. I agree we are lucky to have hydroelectric. Btw, taking into account the energy we buy from Canada, wind energy is 14% of the total, similar to Texas.

Things dont change that quickly in generation, The massive increases in Maine have come mostly by building transmission lines into Canada to suck off their hydro.. And what percentage is NOW Biomass. You need to add up to 100% percent..

My bet is -- the folks up there came to their senses and decommissioned that huge percentage of garbage incinerators due to complaints from damn near everybody.. It was sold as EXTREMELY GREEN and renewable -- but it never was... What a waste of time and money eh????

What are you asking? I gave you stats from a year or so ago. Don't be making shit up, FCT.

 

[flacaltenn]

Maine buys a quarter of its electricity from Canada, but of that generated by Maine, about 25% is wind power. I hunted to see if they had trouble with their wind turbines in the winter and didn't find anything. I did find one article mentioning that their efficiency can increase from an average of about 42% to 60% in the winter due to strong north westerlies.

In 2019, about four-fifths of Maine's electricity net generation came from renewable sources. About three-tenths of the state’s total net generation came from hydroelectric dams, one-fourth was fueled by biomass, and nearly one-fourth was provided by wind turbines. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of state generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades. A small amount of Maine’s net generation, a total of about 2%, came from solar power, petroleum-fueled, and coal-fired power plants. Another 3% of Maine’s net generation is from facilities that primarily burn black liquor waste from pulp mills or municipal and other solid waste materials....
Maine's power supply has undergone a substantial shift since the early 1990s, when more than three-tenths of the state’s net generation typically came from the Maine Yankee nuclear power station and another one-fifth, on average, from petroleum-fired facilities. The Maine Yankee nuclear plant was decommissioned in 1997, and petroleum-fueled generation has decreased from as much as 37% of net generation in the late 1990s to less than 1% in 2019.

I hate to break it to you, FCT, but we're doing just fine without petroleum fueled power. As a consumer, I can tell you we don't have problems with not enough power, although most of it is from renewable sources. Not every state has as many rivers or trees as we do, but if we can do it, anyone can, using their own resources. It doesn't mean disaster to use renewable energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

First of all, the EIA summary is talking about percentages for only the power generated in Maine. When you do these percentages as a TOTAL -- they change as they should taking into account that Maine is DEBTOR state with an 25% IMPORT from Canada. Not using that disparagingly. Just stating that maybe that's a good financial move.. (the 25% import, may not exist. You might have seen this number as the % of Hydro imported from Canada, See below)

It's not clear that your 1st sentence is correct, because what I can find says that Maine is about equal on electricity imports and exports anyways.

Let's look at this from Wikimedia commons. It's the latest pie chart i can find on short notice..

KUDOS on cutting back the almost 20% reliance on HEAVY Petroleum generators and coal from 1990s.. A step in the right direction. But your statement that you are not reliant on "fossil fuels" doesnt' recognize Nat Gas as the fossil fuel it is. But it's much cleaner than coal or fuel oil.

Maine is a unique situation because of the abundance of hydro.. And you can GET MORE hydro from Canada if needed and it's available to be sent. This is NOT a "normal" option for MOST of the rest of the USA. Hydro is a stored power source in itself and can be used to "dance in opposite synchrony" with sketchy and unreliable and unschedulable wind investments. Just like I showed in my graph of daily production in Texas ERCOT. It's not a "fast reaction" counter to wind, since you can't change the flow over a dam in minutes or maybe even hours. So Nat Gas will ALWAYS be required to back the wind component up... When in reality, those same nat gas plants could be used SOLELY without the wind investment at all. So the cost of wind of Maine is to have TWO PLANTS when you only need one.. And if you need increased demand. BOTH need to increase. Not just the wind component..

But that huge HYDRO component allows some real savings in CO2 emission ONLY BECAUSE of the dominant hydro component. APPARENTLY -- the strategy for future power to Maine is to rely on MORE IMPORTS of hydro from Canada. But realize that although hydro is listed as a "renewable", it is no longer in favor with the eco-greens and faces much opposition to building NEW dams and even transmission lines. See the following for the dirt..

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate? • The Revelator

Again, the only places in the US that can DO this to any great scale is upper New England, the US Northwest, and in part as an more expensive option for California, Nevada, Arizona..

The Biomass component component of that Pie chart is a eco-disaster. The real pollution from these facilities is substantial.. And Maine might have a great supply "waste wood", but nowadays, there's no such thing as "waste wood" in logging and lumbering.. So additional trees are being cut or they are burning recycled cardboard, tires or god knows what that other Biomass use..

And the solar is a joke. No one above the Mason Dixon line is gonna get any grid scale benefit from solar. It's more of a loyalty pledge to placate idiots.

Sorry for long reply.. But you asked and I take this seriously.. Especially since one of the two articles I have in production right now is entitled "Wind and Solar are Supplements -- Not Alternatives". LOL.... And I've spent most of Jan-Feb getting my research for the piece together..

I'm disappointed you chose to base your response on 2014 stats when I gave you information from 2019. My point is, it is working without interruption through our long cold winters, and only with 17% natural gas, not 33 as your outdated pie chart shows. I agree we are lucky to have hydroelectric. Btw, taking into account the energy we buy from Canada, wind energy is 14% of the total, similar to Texas.

Things dont change that quickly in generation, The massive increases in Maine have come mostly by building transmission lines into Canada to suck off their hydro.. And what percentage is NOW Biomass. You need to add up to 100% percent..

My bet is -- the folks up there came to their senses and decommissioned that huge percentage of garbage incinerators due to complaints from damn near everybody.. It was sold as EXTREMELY GREEN and renewable -- but it never was... What a waste of time and money eh????

What are you asking? I gave you stats from a year or so ago. Don't be making shit up, FCT.

I'm not making shit only asking for numbers that ADD UP to 100% like EVERY Pie Chart should. You just tossed out 17% for nat gas and 13% for wind.. What do you THINK the other 70% is? You weren't a math teacher I assume.. LOL...

 

[surada]

Super Arrogance Alert!!!!
Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

The former governor’s made the comments as 2.7m Texans are without power

www.yahoo.com

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texans would rather continue to freeze in their homes without electricity than to allow the federal government more involvement in the state's energy grid.

“Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” Mr Perry said on a blog on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's website.


Just think: they can tell that at the eulogies of those that died from the cold weather.

I agree with him,, a few days/weeks of cold weather is far better than a government leash,,,

They screwed up.

ERCOT Needs To Better Winterize Power Grid & Add Capacity, SMU Energy Expert Says

He he he.....

The problem exist BECAUSE of Wind power and Solar power, without them the power problem would be little to none.

Wind turbines apparently do work in cold weather... every where in the world. Except Texas.

70% of electricity in Texas is supplied by fossil fuels. 10% is supplied by nuclear. 10% is solar and 10% is wind.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Super Arrogance Alert!!!!
Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

Rick Perry says Texans would choose to be without power for longer ‘to keep government out of their business’

The former governor’s made the comments as 2.7m Texans are without power

www.yahoo.com

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texans would rather continue to freeze in their homes without electricity than to allow the federal government more involvement in the state's energy grid.

“Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” Mr Perry said on a blog on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's website.


Just think: they can tell that at the eulogies of those that died from the cold weather.

I agree with him,, a few days/weeks of cold weather is far better than a government leash,,,

They screwed up.

ERCOT Needs To Better Winterize Power Grid & Add Capacity, SMU Energy Expert Says

He he he.....

The problem exist BECAUSE of Wind power and Solar power, without them the power problem would be little to none.

Wind turbines apparently do work in cold weather... every where in the world. Except Texas.

70% of electricity in Texas is supplied by fossil fuels. 10% is supplied by nuclear. 10% is solar and 10% is wind.

Yes I am aware of that, however it rarely gets that cold and snowy to cause problems in Texas, while it is normally cold and snowy in Canada, Norway, France, Germany and so on.

 

[OldLady]

Maine buys a quarter of its electricity from Canada, but of that generated by Maine, about 25% is wind power. I hunted to see if they had trouble with their wind turbines in the winter and didn't find anything. I did find one article mentioning that their efficiency can increase from an average of about 42% to 60% in the winter due to strong north westerlies.

In 2019, about four-fifths of Maine's electricity net generation came from renewable sources. About three-tenths of the state’s total net generation came from hydroelectric dams, one-fourth was fueled by biomass, and nearly one-fourth was provided by wind turbines. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of state generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades. A small amount of Maine’s net generation, a total of about 2%, came from solar power, petroleum-fueled, and coal-fired power plants. Another 3% of Maine’s net generation is from facilities that primarily burn black liquor waste from pulp mills or municipal and other solid waste materials....
Maine's power supply has undergone a substantial shift since the early 1990s, when more than three-tenths of the state’s net generation typically came from the Maine Yankee nuclear power station and another one-fifth, on average, from petroleum-fired facilities. The Maine Yankee nuclear plant was decommissioned in 1997, and petroleum-fueled generation has decreased from as much as 37% of net generation in the late 1990s to less than 1% in 2019.

I hate to break it to you, FCT, but we're doing just fine without petroleum fueled power. As a consumer, I can tell you we don't have problems with not enough power, although most of it is from renewable sources. Not every state has as many rivers or trees as we do, but if we can do it, anyone can, using their own resources. It doesn't mean disaster to use renewable energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

First of all, the EIA summary is talking about percentages for only the power generated in Maine. When you do these percentages as a TOTAL -- they change as they should taking into account that Maine is DEBTOR state with an 25% IMPORT from Canada. Not using that disparagingly. Just stating that maybe that's a good financial move.. (the 25% import, may not exist. You might have seen this number as the % of Hydro imported from Canada, See below)

It's not clear that your 1st sentence is correct, because what I can find says that Maine is about equal on electricity imports and exports anyways.

Let's look at this from Wikimedia commons. It's the latest pie chart i can find on short notice..

KUDOS on cutting back the almost 20% reliance on HEAVY Petroleum generators and coal from 1990s.. A step in the right direction. But your statement that you are not reliant on "fossil fuels" doesnt' recognize Nat Gas as the fossil fuel it is. But it's much cleaner than coal or fuel oil.

Maine is a unique situation because of the abundance of hydro.. And you can GET MORE hydro from Canada if needed and it's available to be sent. This is NOT a "normal" option for MOST of the rest of the USA. Hydro is a stored power source in itself and can be used to "dance in opposite synchrony" with sketchy and unreliable and unschedulable wind investments. Just like I showed in my graph of daily production in Texas ERCOT. It's not a "fast reaction" counter to wind, since you can't change the flow over a dam in minutes or maybe even hours. So Nat Gas will ALWAYS be required to back the wind component up... When in reality, those same nat gas plants could be used SOLELY without the wind investment at all. So the cost of wind of Maine is to have TWO PLANTS when you only need one.. And if you need increased demand. BOTH need to increase. Not just the wind component..

But that huge HYDRO component allows some real savings in CO2 emission ONLY BECAUSE of the dominant hydro component. APPARENTLY -- the strategy for future power to Maine is to rely on MORE IMPORTS of hydro from Canada. But realize that although hydro is listed as a "renewable", it is no longer in favor with the eco-greens and faces much opposition to building NEW dams and even transmission lines. See the following for the dirt..

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate? • The Revelator

Again, the only places in the US that can DO this to any great scale is upper New England, the US Northwest, and in part as an more expensive option for California, Nevada, Arizona..

The Biomass component component of that Pie chart is a eco-disaster. The real pollution from these facilities is substantial.. And Maine might have a great supply "waste wood", but nowadays, there's no such thing as "waste wood" in logging and lumbering.. So additional trees are being cut or they are burning recycled cardboard, tires or god knows what that other Biomass use..

And the solar is a joke. No one above the Mason Dixon line is gonna get any grid scale benefit from solar. It's more of a loyalty pledge to placate idiots.

Sorry for long reply.. But you asked and I take this seriously.. Especially since one of the two articles I have in production right now is entitled "Wind and Solar are Supplements -- Not Alternatives". LOL.... And I've spent most of Jan-Feb getting my research for the piece together..

I'm disappointed you chose to base your response on 2014 stats when I gave you information from 2019. My point is, it is working without interruption through our long cold winters, and only with 17% natural gas, not 33 as your outdated pie chart shows. I agree we are lucky to have hydroelectric. Btw, taking into account the energy we buy from Canada, wind energy is 14% of the total, similar to Texas.

Things dont change that quickly in generation, The massive increases in Maine have come mostly by building transmission lines into Canada to suck off their hydro.. And what percentage is NOW Biomass. You need to add up to 100% percent..

My bet is -- the folks up there came to their senses and decommissioned that huge percentage of garbage incinerators due to complaints from damn near everybody.. It was sold as EXTREMELY GREEN and renewable -- but it never was... What a waste of time and money eh????

What are you asking? I gave you stats from a year or so ago. Don't be making shit up, FCT.

I'm not making shit only asking for numbers that ADD UP to 100% like EVERY Pie Chart should. You just tossed out 17% for nat gas and 13% for wind.. What do you THINK the other 70% is? You weren't a math teacher I assume.. LOL...

I gave you this link once, but here ya go again.

 

[flacaltenn]

Maine buys a quarter of its electricity from Canada, but of that generated by Maine, about 25% is wind power. I hunted to see if they had trouble with their wind turbines in the winter and didn't find anything. I did find one article mentioning that their efficiency can increase from an average of about 42% to 60% in the winter due to strong north westerlies.

In 2019, about four-fifths of Maine's electricity net generation came from renewable sources. About three-tenths of the state’s total net generation came from hydroelectric dams, one-fourth was fueled by biomass, and nearly one-fourth was provided by wind turbines. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of state generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades. A small amount of Maine’s net generation, a total of about 2%, came from solar power, petroleum-fueled, and coal-fired power plants. Another 3% of Maine’s net generation is from facilities that primarily burn black liquor waste from pulp mills or municipal and other solid waste materials....
Maine's power supply has undergone a substantial shift since the early 1990s, when more than three-tenths of the state’s net generation typically came from the Maine Yankee nuclear power station and another one-fifth, on average, from petroleum-fired facilities. The Maine Yankee nuclear plant was decommissioned in 1997, and petroleum-fueled generation has decreased from as much as 37% of net generation in the late 1990s to less than 1% in 2019.

I hate to break it to you, FCT, but we're doing just fine without petroleum fueled power. As a consumer, I can tell you we don't have problems with not enough power, although most of it is from renewable sources. Not every state has as many rivers or trees as we do, but if we can do it, anyone can, using their own resources. It doesn't mean disaster to use renewable energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

www.eia.gov

First of all, the EIA summary is talking about percentages for only the power generated in Maine. When you do these percentages as a TOTAL -- they change as they should taking into account that Maine is DEBTOR state with an 25% IMPORT from Canada. Not using that disparagingly. Just stating that maybe that's a good financial move.. (the 25% import, may not exist. You might have seen this number as the % of Hydro imported from Canada, See below)

It's not clear that your 1st sentence is correct, because what I can find says that Maine is about equal on electricity imports and exports anyways.

Let's look at this from Wikimedia commons. It's the latest pie chart i can find on short notice..

KUDOS on cutting back the almost 20% reliance on HEAVY Petroleum generators and coal from 1990s.. A step in the right direction. But your statement that you are not reliant on "fossil fuels" doesnt' recognize Nat Gas as the fossil fuel it is. But it's much cleaner than coal or fuel oil.

Maine is a unique situation because of the abundance of hydro.. And you can GET MORE hydro from Canada if needed and it's available to be sent. This is NOT a "normal" option for MOST of the rest of the USA. Hydro is a stored power source in itself and can be used to "dance in opposite synchrony" with sketchy and unreliable and unschedulable wind investments. Just like I showed in my graph of daily production in Texas ERCOT. It's not a "fast reaction" counter to wind, since you can't change the flow over a dam in minutes or maybe even hours. So Nat Gas will ALWAYS be required to back the wind component up... When in reality, those same nat gas plants could be used SOLELY without the wind investment at all. So the cost of wind of Maine is to have TWO PLANTS when you only need one.. And if you need increased demand. BOTH need to increase. Not just the wind component..

But that huge HYDRO component allows some real savings in CO2 emission ONLY BECAUSE of the dominant hydro component. APPARENTLY -- the strategy for future power to Maine is to rely on MORE IMPORTS of hydro from Canada. But realize that although hydro is listed as a "renewable", it is no longer in favor with the eco-greens and faces much opposition to building NEW dams and even transmission lines. See the following for the dirt..

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate? • The Revelator

Again, the only places in the US that can DO this to any great scale is upper New England, the US Northwest, and in part as an more expensive option for California, Nevada, Arizona..

The Biomass component component of that Pie chart is a eco-disaster. The real pollution from these facilities is substantial.. And Maine might have a great supply "waste wood", but nowadays, there's no such thing as "waste wood" in logging and lumbering.. So additional trees are being cut or they are burning recycled cardboard, tires or god knows what that other Biomass use..

And the solar is a joke. No one above the Mason Dixon line is gonna get any grid scale benefit from solar. It's more of a loyalty pledge to placate idiots.

Sorry for long reply.. But you asked and I take this seriously.. Especially since one of the two articles I have in production right now is entitled "Wind and Solar are Supplements -- Not Alternatives". LOL.... And I've spent most of Jan-Feb getting my research for the piece together..

I'm disappointed you chose to base your response on 2014 stats when I gave you information from 2019. My point is, it is working without interruption through our long cold winters, and only with 17% natural gas, not 33 as your outdated pie chart shows. I agree we are lucky to have hydroelectric. Btw, taking into account the energy we buy from Canada, wind energy is 14% of the total, similar to Texas.

Things dont change that quickly in generation, The massive increases in Maine have come mostly by building transmission lines into Canada to suck off their hydro.. And what percentage is NOW Biomass. You need to add up to 100% percent..

My bet is -- the folks up there came to their senses and decommissioned that huge percentage of garbage incinerators due to complaints from damn near everybody.. It was sold as EXTREMELY GREEN and renewable -- but it never was... What a waste of time and money eh????

What are you asking? I gave you stats from a year or so ago. Don't be making shit up, FCT.

Here's another Maine Pie Chart from 2018.. Aint much diff from the one I previously posted. And the source given is also EIA...

Chart: Maine's Power Mix - Inside Climate News

insideclimatenews.org