Frozen wind turbines hamper Texas power output

[flacaltenn]

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

It's not an absolute guarantee. Even with "cold weather" heating and other options that can be bought for most wind mills. Given that our all national strategic planning is based on a future "warmer world" -- you might think that those options wouldn't be required in Texas.

It's an ongoing study to get BETTER at preventing turbine blade icing all over the world.

Engineers study icing/de-icing of wind turbine blades to improve winter power production • News Service • Iowa State University (iastate.edu)

And you don't understand the wind production numbers.. Over a YEAR -- wind might produce only 12% of Texas's energy.. But that's because they hardly ever produce over 50% of the power they were bought with.. So WHEN they produce on a windy day -- they might be generating as much as 40 or 50% of the states energy.. Typically, 50% of a yearly wind energy production occurs in UNDER 100 days of that year.. That's why the "average" yearly number doesn't tell how much they are relied any particular day or week of the year.

If a storm rolls in and THEY ARE CURRENTLY PRODUCING, say, 40% of the electricity in Texas, but they start to ice up -- it takes TIME to bring Nat Gas stations online. And if those stations have been SHUT DOWN because of the rare wind surplus -- they might succumb to the cold weather BECAUSE they've shut down and not idled or maintained.

 

[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.

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

Natural gas is down 14% from the last chart you showed. So that's an improvement. Now, what's your point again? You've been saying for two days that we can't survive with such small fossil fuel generation. I showed you, yes we can.

You've showed me stuff that's very interesting. I've learned some stuff. I've also learned that the reason people in Texas are freezing is not because of frozen wind turbines. It was poor planning and significant failure of their natural gas plants, even a nuclear plant went down! Also, that 85% of Texas can't buy power from other states has hurt them big time. Other states in times of crisis can borrow from nearby states. But Texas wanted to avoid regulation, so they said no.

Blaming renewable energy as the big culprit was a great idea, but the facts caught up with them.

I hope as time goes on, the technology will improve, which I'm sure it will, and we can become 100% renewable energy. I do understand that it can't stand alone at this point, but even if states can only be 50 or 60% renewable, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

 

[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

Natural gas is down 14% from the last chart you showed. So that's an improvement. Now, what's your point again? You've been saying for two days that we can't survive with such small fossil fuel generation. I showed you, yes we can.

You've showed me stuff that's very interesting. I've learned some stuff. I've also learned that the reason people in Texas are freezing is not because of frozen wind turbines. It was poor planning and significant failure of their natural gas plants, even a nuclear plant went down! Also, that 85% of Texas can't buy power from other states has hurt them big time. Other states in times of crisis can borrow from nearby states. But Texas wanted to avoid regulation, so they said no.

Blaming renewable energy as the big culprit was a great idea, but the facts caught up with them.

I hope as time goes on, the technology will improve, which I'm sure it will, and we can become 100% renewable energy. I do understand that it can't stand alone at this point, but even if states can only be 50 or 60% renewable, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Just told you how UNIQUE the situation up there is in this country.. Cannot be replicated in the majority of OTHER states. And you need to realize that the eco-fraud wing of conservationists and environmentalist would just assume TEAR DOWN the huge dams.. Not an idle threat. There's perrenial legislation pending in many west coast states to TRY and DO that.

You rarely find Hydro on a list of "alternatives" for that reason.. It's not green enough.. In fact BUILDING a grid scale hydro dam is a HUGE carbon emission problem for decades after it's built because of rotting and decaying vegetation destroyed by purposely flooding.

So -- rely on Canada for this blessing.. Because there's NO WAY you would get approval for Maine to build it's OWN HUGE Hydro projects..

 

[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.

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

Natural gas is down 14% from the last chart you showed. So that's an improvement. Now, what's your point again? You've been saying for two days that we can't survive with such small fossil fuel generation. I showed you, yes we can.

You've showed me stuff that's very interesting. I've learned some stuff. I've also learned that the reason people in Texas are freezing is not because of frozen wind turbines. It was poor planning and significant failure of their natural gas plants, even a nuclear plant went down! Also, that 85% of Texas can't buy power from other states has hurt them big time. Other states in times of crisis can borrow from nearby states. But Texas wanted to avoid regulation, so they said no.

Blaming renewable energy as the big culprit was a great idea, but the facts caught up with them.

I hope as time goes on, the technology will improve, which I'm sure it will, and we can become 100% renewable energy. I do understand that it can't stand alone at this point, but even if states can only be 50 or 60% renewable, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Just told you how UNIQUE the situation up there is in this country.. Cannot be replicated in the majority of OTHER states. And you need to realize that the eco-fraud wing of conservationists and environmentalist would just assume TEAR DOWN the huge dams.. Not an idle threat. There's perrenial legislation pending in many west coast states to TRY and DO that.

You rarely find Hydro on a list of "alternatives" for that reason.. It's not green enough.. In fact BUILDING a grid scale hydro dam is a HUGE carbon emission problem for decades after it's built because of rotting and decaying vegetation destroyed by purposely flooding.

So -- rely on Canada for this blessing.. Because there's NO WAY you would get approval for Maine to build it's OWN HUGE Hydro projects..

We don't need one. And the dam thing is not news to me. We've got a zillion of 'em. Back in the day, everyone built them. Some are taken down, others they build fish ladders and such, but there is always a big squawk about it, both sides.

Fuck the greenies. They've been up here trying to turn the entire state of Maine into a giant state park for years. They're on the ballot every year and never get more than a couple percent of the vote. Most of them are from out of state. I am all for clean energy but there has to be a reasonable balance. After all, people do live and work here. Never forget, FCT. I'm a moderate.

 

[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

Natural gas is down 14% from the last chart you showed. So that's an improvement. Now, what's your point again? You've been saying for two days that we can't survive with such small fossil fuel generation. I showed you, yes we can.

You've showed me stuff that's very interesting. I've learned some stuff. I've also learned that the reason people in Texas are freezing is not because of frozen wind turbines. It was poor planning and significant failure of their natural gas plants, even a nuclear plant went down! Also, that 85% of Texas can't buy power from other states has hurt them big time. Other states in times of crisis can borrow from nearby states. But Texas wanted to avoid regulation, so they said no.

Blaming renewable energy as the big culprit was a great idea, but the facts caught up with them.

I hope as time goes on, the technology will improve, which I'm sure it will, and we can become 100% renewable energy. I do understand that it can't stand alone at this point, but even if states can only be 50 or 60% renewable, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Just told you how UNIQUE the situation up there is in this country.. Cannot be replicated in the majority of OTHER states. And you need to realize that the eco-fraud wing of conservationists and environmentalist would just assume TEAR DOWN the huge dams.. Not an idle threat. There's perrenial legislation pending in many west coast states to TRY and DO that.

You rarely find Hydro on a list of "alternatives" for that reason.. It's not green enough.. In fact BUILDING a grid scale hydro dam is a HUGE carbon emission problem for decades after it's built because of rotting and decaying vegetation destroyed by purposely flooding.

So -- rely on Canada for this blessing.. Because there's NO WAY you would get approval for Maine to build it's OWN HUGE Hydro projects..

We don't need one. And the dam thing is not news to me. We've got a zillion of 'em. Back in the day, everyone built them. Some are taken down, others they build fish ladders and such, but there is always a big squawk about it, both sides.

Fuck the greenies. They've been up here trying to turn the entire state of Maine into a giant state park for years. They're on the ballot every year and never get more than a couple percent of the vote. Most of them are from out of state. I am all for clean energy but there has to be a reasonable balance. After all, people do live and work here. Never forget, FCT. I'm a moderate.

I believe you are... That's why I prefer talking with you as oppose to rabid partisans. I'm an ARDENT conservationist. Even active in keeping my sub-rural paradise here pristine and preserved. But the pressure is there now and coming to use GWarming as an excuse to do very unwise things to our energy infrastructure. And I hope they fail..

I.E. -- More Federally mandated or subsidized wind and solar in Maine WITHOUT increasing nat gas plants at the SAME RATE as a "moderator" to keep up with the demand curve -- WILL get people frozen and killed. Because hydro is a good "storage" moderator for flaky wind, but it can NOT REACT anywhere near fast enough when the wind suddenly stops.. Even nat gas plants that can come on-line in minutes may fail to stabilize a "wind heavy" inventory of power generators.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have 2 dozen head of wild turkeys that worship me.. And about 10 roaming deer that prefer my yard. So they can vouch for my dedication to the ecosystem..

 

[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.

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

Natural gas is down 14% from the last chart you showed. So that's an improvement. Now, what's your point again? You've been saying for two days that we can't survive with such small fossil fuel generation. I showed you, yes we can.

You've showed me stuff that's very interesting. I've learned some stuff. I've also learned that the reason people in Texas are freezing is not because of frozen wind turbines. It was poor planning and significant failure of their natural gas plants, even a nuclear plant went down! Also, that 85% of Texas can't buy power from other states has hurt them big time. Other states in times of crisis can borrow from nearby states. But Texas wanted to avoid regulation, so they said no.

Blaming renewable energy as the big culprit was a great idea, but the facts caught up with them.

I hope as time goes on, the technology will improve, which I'm sure it will, and we can become 100% renewable energy. I do understand that it can't stand alone at this point, but even if states can only be 50 or 60% renewable, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Just told you how UNIQUE the situation up there is in this country.. Cannot be replicated in the majority of OTHER states. And you need to realize that the eco-fraud wing of conservationists and environmentalist would just assume TEAR DOWN the huge dams.. Not an idle threat. There's perrenial legislation pending in many west coast states to TRY and DO that.

You rarely find Hydro on a list of "alternatives" for that reason.. It's not green enough.. In fact BUILDING a grid scale hydro dam is a HUGE carbon emission problem for decades after it's built because of rotting and decaying vegetation destroyed by purposely flooding.

So -- rely on Canada for this blessing.. Because there's NO WAY you would get approval for Maine to build it's OWN HUGE Hydro projects..

We don't need one. And the dam thing is not news to me. We've got a zillion of 'em. Back in the day, everyone built them. Some are taken down, others they build fish ladders and such, but there is always a big squawk about it, both sides.

Fuck the greenies. They've been up here trying to turn the entire state of Maine into a giant state park for years. They're on the ballot every year and never get more than a couple percent of the vote. Most of them are from out of state. I am all for clean energy but there has to be a reasonable balance. After all, people do live and work here. Never forget, FCT. I'm a moderate.

I believe you are... That's why I prefer talking with you as oppose to rabid partisans. I'm an ARDENT conservationist. Even active in keeping my sub-rural paradise here pristine and preserved. But the pressure is there now and coming to use GWarming as an excuse to do very unwise things to our energy infrastructure. And I hope they fail..

I.E. -- More Federally mandated or subsidized wind and solar in Maine WITHOUT increasing nat gas plants at the SAME RATE as a "moderator" to keep up with the demand curve -- WILL get people frozen and killed. Because hydro is a good "storage" moderator for flaky wind, but it can NOT REACT anywhere near fast enough when the wind suddenly stops.. Even nat gas plants that can come on-line in minutes may fail to stabilize a "wind heavy" inventory of power generators.

They will figure out a way to store it/stabilize it, and they are still looking at ways to harness the perpetually moving force of the ocean. While I can understand your fear of the green revolution happening too quickly, being so negative about alternatives is not going to help keep your little haven pristine in the long run. Climate change is going to affect us all. We can make it better, if we think ahead, don't you agree?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Did Frozen Wind Turbines Impact the Texas Freeze? Here's the Data

 

[OldLady]

I have 2 dozen head of wild turkeys that worship me.. And about 10 roaming deer that prefer my yard. So they can vouch for my dedication to the ecosystem..

LOL I had a small flock camp in my back field for a week or two and I was very happy they moved on. There was this one guy that took up position in the old pine on the edge of my yard and everytime I stepped foot out of the house, he set to gobbling at me in the most serious tone. Then from the pines behind my field I'd hear the clucking of his harem. I was not looking forward to them hanging around.

 

[Bobob]

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

You sound just like Trump--make stuff up as you cheerfully skip down the path.
Truthfulness? NAH
Read before you flap.
Top stories
Texas power outage: Why natural gas went down during the winter storm
The Texas Tribune·1 day ago

Shitforbrains thinks all solar plants and wind turbines THAT THE FEDS REQUIRED TO BE BUILT produce no electricity.

Is that what your feeble mind has gleaned from this catastrophe? Can you read?

 

[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

Natural gas is down 14% from the last chart you showed. So that's an improvement. Now, what's your point again? You've been saying for two days that we can't survive with such small fossil fuel generation. I showed you, yes we can.

You've showed me stuff that's very interesting. I've learned some stuff. I've also learned that the reason people in Texas are freezing is not because of frozen wind turbines. It was poor planning and significant failure of their natural gas plants, even a nuclear plant went down! Also, that 85% of Texas can't buy power from other states has hurt them big time. Other states in times of crisis can borrow from nearby states. But Texas wanted to avoid regulation, so they said no.

Blaming renewable energy as the big culprit was a great idea, but the facts caught up with them.

I hope as time goes on, the technology will improve, which I'm sure it will, and we can become 100% renewable energy. I do understand that it can't stand alone at this point, but even if states can only be 50 or 60% renewable, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Just told you how UNIQUE the situation up there is in this country.. Cannot be replicated in the majority of OTHER states. And you need to realize that the eco-fraud wing of conservationists and environmentalist would just assume TEAR DOWN the huge dams.. Not an idle threat. There's perrenial legislation pending in many west coast states to TRY and DO that.

You rarely find Hydro on a list of "alternatives" for that reason.. It's not green enough.. In fact BUILDING a grid scale hydro dam is a HUGE carbon emission problem for decades after it's built because of rotting and decaying vegetation destroyed by purposely flooding.

So -- rely on Canada for this blessing.. Because there's NO WAY you would get approval for Maine to build it's OWN HUGE Hydro projects..

We don't need one. And the dam thing is not news to me. We've got a zillion of 'em. Back in the day, everyone built them. Some are taken down, others they build fish ladders and such, but there is always a big squawk about it, both sides.

Fuck the greenies. They've been up here trying to turn the entire state of Maine into a giant state park for years. They're on the ballot every year and never get more than a couple percent of the vote. Most of them are from out of state. I am all for clean energy but there has to be a reasonable balance. After all, people do live and work here. Never forget, FCT. I'm a moderate.

I believe you are... That's why I prefer talking with you as oppose to rabid partisans. I'm an ARDENT conservationist. Even active in keeping my sub-rural paradise here pristine and preserved. But the pressure is there now and coming to use GWarming as an excuse to do very unwise things to our energy infrastructure. And I hope they fail..

I.E. -- More Federally mandated or subsidized wind and solar in Maine WITHOUT increasing nat gas plants at the SAME RATE as a "moderator" to keep up with the demand curve -- WILL get people frozen and killed. Because hydro is a good "storage" moderator for flaky wind, but it can NOT REACT anywhere near fast enough when the wind suddenly stops.. Even nat gas plants that can come on-line in minutes may fail to stabilize a "wind heavy" inventory of power generators.

They will figure out a way to store it/stabilize it, and they are still looking at ways to harness the perpetually moving force of the ocean. While I can understand your fear of the green revolution happening too quickly, being so negative about alternatives is not going to help keep your little haven pristine in the long run. Climate change is going to affect us all. We can make it better, if we think ahead, don't you agree?

I dont have a fear of technology. I have a fear of political design of energy infrastructure. You have an irrational exhuberance of "THEY WILL" -- based on nothing I see in the science and engineering when it comes to wind and solar..

Not negative about "alternatives".. Wind and solar are NOT ALTERNATIVES.. They are supplements and WILL be because of physics and engineering and the cost to the environment of STORING enough of it to force them to BE alternatives.

MASSIVE battery storage is NOT Green NOR sustainable, Not with using the best technologies available and on the horizon.. Not an unlimited, "sustainable" supply of the rare metals and lithium like materials. And they have a LIMITED LIFE and a HORRID path to recycling any of that massive polluting load that will further INCREASE by MANDATING EVehicles..

 

[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.

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

Natural gas is down 14% from the last chart you showed. So that's an improvement. Now, what's your point again? You've been saying for two days that we can't survive with such small fossil fuel generation. I showed you, yes we can.

You've showed me stuff that's very interesting. I've learned some stuff. I've also learned that the reason people in Texas are freezing is not because of frozen wind turbines. It was poor planning and significant failure of their natural gas plants, even a nuclear plant went down! Also, that 85% of Texas can't buy power from other states has hurt them big time. Other states in times of crisis can borrow from nearby states. But Texas wanted to avoid regulation, so they said no.

Blaming renewable energy as the big culprit was a great idea, but the facts caught up with them.

I hope as time goes on, the technology will improve, which I'm sure it will, and we can become 100% renewable energy. I do understand that it can't stand alone at this point, but even if states can only be 50 or 60% renewable, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Just told you how UNIQUE the situation up there is in this country.. Cannot be replicated in the majority of OTHER states. And you need to realize that the eco-fraud wing of conservationists and environmentalist would just assume TEAR DOWN the huge dams.. Not an idle threat. There's perrenial legislation pending in many west coast states to TRY and DO that.

You rarely find Hydro on a list of "alternatives" for that reason.. It's not green enough.. In fact BUILDING a grid scale hydro dam is a HUGE carbon emission problem for decades after it's built because of rotting and decaying vegetation destroyed by purposely flooding.

So -- rely on Canada for this blessing.. Because there's NO WAY you would get approval for Maine to build it's OWN HUGE Hydro projects..

We don't need one. And the dam thing is not news to me. We've got a zillion of 'em. Back in the day, everyone built them. Some are taken down, others they build fish ladders and such, but there is always a big squawk about it, both sides.

Fuck the greenies. They've been up here trying to turn the entire state of Maine into a giant state park for years. They're on the ballot every year and never get more than a couple percent of the vote. Most of them are from out of state. I am all for clean energy but there has to be a reasonable balance. After all, people do live and work here. Never forget, FCT. I'm a moderate.

I believe you are... That's why I prefer talking with you as oppose to rabid partisans. I'm an ARDENT conservationist. Even active in keeping my sub-rural paradise here pristine and preserved. But the pressure is there now and coming to use GWarming as an excuse to do very unwise things to our energy infrastructure. And I hope they fail..

I.E. -- More Federally mandated or subsidized wind and solar in Maine WITHOUT increasing nat gas plants at the SAME RATE as a "moderator" to keep up with the demand curve -- WILL get people frozen and killed. Because hydro is a good "storage" moderator for flaky wind, but it can NOT REACT anywhere near fast enough when the wind suddenly stops.. Even nat gas plants that can come on-line in minutes may fail to stabilize a "wind heavy" inventory of power generators.

They will figure out a way to store it/stabilize it, and they are still looking at ways to harness the perpetually moving force of the ocean. While I can understand your fear of the green revolution happening too quickly, being so negative about alternatives is not going to help keep your little haven pristine in the long run. Climate change is going to affect us all. We can make it better, if we think ahead, don't you agree?

I dont have a fear of technology. I have a fear of political design of energy infrastructure. You have an irrational exhuberance of "THEY WILL" -- based on nothing I see in the science and engineering when it comes to wind and solar..

Not negative about "alternatives".. Wind and solar are NOT ALTERNATIVES.. They are supplements and WILL be because of physics and engineering and the cost to the environment of STORING enough of it to force them to BE alternatives.

MASSIVE battery storage is NOT Green NOR sustainable, Not with using the best technologies available and on the horizon.. Not an unlimited, "sustainable" supply of the rare metals and lithium like materials. And they have a LIMITED LIFE and a HORRID path to recycling any of that massive polluting load that will further INCREASE by MANDATING EVehicles..

Fine, FCT. using wind and solar as supplements has very effectively cut the amount of C02 we're contributing to the atmosphere, so I'm good with that. You should be, too. Our politicians aren't going to tie us exclusively to a technology that only produces erratically. No one has suggested only using wind and solar, but as "supplements," as you want to call them, they are being pushed because they are one piece of the puzzle.

What's irrational is to believe green energy has to be unreliable. You're fear mongering.

 

[ding]

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

Natural gas is down 14% from the last chart you showed. So that's an improvement. Now, what's your point again? You've been saying for two days that we can't survive with such small fossil fuel generation. I showed you, yes we can.

You've showed me stuff that's very interesting. I've learned some stuff. I've also learned that the reason people in Texas are freezing is not because of frozen wind turbines. It was poor planning and significant failure of their natural gas plants, even a nuclear plant went down! Also, that 85% of Texas can't buy power from other states has hurt them big time. Other states in times of crisis can borrow from nearby states. But Texas wanted to avoid regulation, so they said no.

Blaming renewable energy as the big culprit was a great idea, but the facts caught up with them.

I hope as time goes on, the technology will improve, which I'm sure it will, and we can become 100% renewable energy. I do understand that it can't stand alone at this point, but even if states can only be 50 or 60% renewable, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Just told you how UNIQUE the situation up there is in this country.. Cannot be replicated in the majority of OTHER states. And you need to realize that the eco-fraud wing of conservationists and environmentalist would just assume TEAR DOWN the huge dams.. Not an idle threat. There's perrenial legislation pending in many west coast states to TRY and DO that.

You rarely find Hydro on a list of "alternatives" for that reason.. It's not green enough.. In fact BUILDING a grid scale hydro dam is a HUGE carbon emission problem for decades after it's built because of rotting and decaying vegetation destroyed by purposely flooding.

So -- rely on Canada for this blessing.. Because there's NO WAY you would get approval for Maine to build it's OWN HUGE Hydro projects..

We don't need one. And the dam thing is not news to me. We've got a zillion of 'em. Back in the day, everyone built them. Some are taken down, others they build fish ladders and such, but there is always a big squawk about it, both sides.

Fuck the greenies. They've been up here trying to turn the entire state of Maine into a giant state park for years. They're on the ballot every year and never get more than a couple percent of the vote. Most of them are from out of state. I am all for clean energy but there has to be a reasonable balance. After all, people do live and work here. Never forget, FCT. I'm a moderate.

I believe you are... That's why I prefer talking with you as oppose to rabid partisans. I'm an ARDENT conservationist. Even active in keeping my sub-rural paradise here pristine and preserved. But the pressure is there now and coming to use GWarming as an excuse to do very unwise things to our energy infrastructure. And I hope they fail..

I.E. -- More Federally mandated or subsidized wind and solar in Maine WITHOUT increasing nat gas plants at the SAME RATE as a "moderator" to keep up with the demand curve -- WILL get people frozen and killed. Because hydro is a good "storage" moderator for flaky wind, but it can NOT REACT anywhere near fast enough when the wind suddenly stops.. Even nat gas plants that can come on-line in minutes may fail to stabilize a "wind heavy" inventory of power generators.

They will figure out a way to store it/stabilize it, and they are still looking at ways to harness the perpetually moving force of the ocean. While I can understand your fear of the green revolution happening too quickly, being so negative about alternatives is not going to help keep your little haven pristine in the long run. Climate change is going to affect us all. We can make it better, if we think ahead, don't you agree?

I dont have a fear of technology. I have a fear of political design of energy infrastructure. You have an irrational exhuberance of "THEY WILL" -- based on nothing I see in the science and engineering when it comes to wind and solar..

Not negative about "alternatives".. Wind and solar are NOT ALTERNATIVES.. They are supplements and WILL be because of physics and engineering and the cost to the environment of STORING enough of it to force them to BE alternatives.

MASSIVE battery storage is NOT Green NOR sustainable, Not with using the best technologies available and on the horizon.. Not an unlimited, "sustainable" supply of the rare metals and lithium like materials. And they have a LIMITED LIFE and a HORRID path to recycling any of that massive polluting load that will further INCREASE by MANDATING EVehicles..

Fine, FCT. using wind and solar as supplements has very effectively cut the amount of C02 we're contributing to the atmosphere, so I'm good with that. You should be, too. Our politicians aren't going to tie us exclusively to a technology that only produces erratically. No one has suggested only using wind and solar, but as "supplements," as you want to call them, they are being pushed because they are one piece of the puzzle.

What's irrational is to believe green energy has to be unreliable. You're fear mongering.

Why do you want to cut CO2 emissions?

 

[flacaltenn]

No one has suggested only using wind and solar, but as "supplements," as you want to call them, they are being pushed because they are one piece of the puzzle.

That's the Green Raw Deal.. We're in Phase 1 already. Eliminating or making fossil fuel of ANY KIND too expensive and rare. Hasn't been a one of those advocating talking about ANYTHING OTHER than wind and solar.. Got any statements about building out Nuclear on 4th gen technology? Nope. John Fraud Kerry just told all those pipeline workers laid off to "go and become Solar Technicians"...

That's the level of stupid I'm fighting against..

 

[flacaltenn]

I have 2 dozen head of wild turkeys that worship me.. And about 10 roaming deer that prefer my yard. So they can vouch for my dedication to the ecosystem..

LOL I had a small flock camp in my back field for a week or two and I was very happy they moved on. There was this one guy that took up position in the old pine on the edge of my yard and everytime I stepped foot out of the house, he set to gobbling at me in the most serious tone. Then from the pines behind my field I'd hear the clucking of his harem. I was not looking forward to them hanging around.

Just goobling isn't really a threat. They do this whenever they're excited. I can sit on the patio and they will graze 5 ft away.. They really like watching me have the neighbor cat on my lap.. It totally blows their little minds. They're very vocal when the group is large.

 

[Stryder50]

Edited for brevity.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you want to cut CO2 emissions?
[/QUOTE]
Because the 99+% of life on this planet=Flora~green plants, which need CO2 to survive don't really need it and we don't need them for us fauna/humans to survive.

Never mind that the minimum optimal for most flora is at least 300ppm of CO2, and at around 400ppm there's way too much ...

 

[Stryder50]

Edited for brevity.

Fine, FCT. using wind and solar as supplements has very effectively cut the amount of C02 we're contributing to the atmosphere, so I'm good with that. You should be, too. Our politicians aren't going to tie us exclusively to a technology that only produces erratically. No one has suggested only using wind and solar, but as "supplements," as you want to call them, they are being pushed because they are one piece of the puzzle.

What's irrational is to believe green energy has to be unreliable. You're fear mongering.
[/QUOTE]
In the case of Texas, wind is about 23% of their electrical source.
Our politicians aren't always the sharpest knives in the drawer, but will work for the lobbist that pays the most.
And, yes, as pointed out by others, many guv'mints are advocating for large transitions to wind and solar ~ "renewables" to replace so called "fossil fuels" - a term that is very misleading.

I spent the last couple decades working in the composites='plastics/synthetics' manufacturing industry and carbon resources, mostly petroleum are used as the raw materials there. In the case of vinyl, that is mostly from natural gas. So these resources aren't just for 'fuel' or energy production use.

In the case of solar and wind equipment, as pointed out earlier, they are very environmentally costly in the mining and manufacturing process of the raw materials used (and they use a significant amount of carbon resources~petroleum, etc.). Same for the battery tech for energy storage which relies on the shrinking supply of lithium.

There is also the matter of the wind must blow and the Sun shine for wind and solar to work, plus we are discovering the life span of such devices are far shorter than we thought.

They may be a "piece of the puzzle", but they are costlier to produce, a larger impact upon the environment than is being openly admitted, not reliable, shorter lived, and in total a greater cost per jule/megawatt than other sources. In short, they are far from being "green" and not even really renewable.

 

[Stryder50]

 

[OldLady]

Thanks for all the information, guys. Nothing wrong with pointing out the current weaknesses of wind and solar, I'll keep it in mind. You haven't turned me into a naysayer, though, just as I haven't convinced you that wind and solar are a great tool in the toolkit. We're just repeating ourselves, so I'll let y'all carry on without me.

 

[Stryder50]

Thanks for all the information, guys. Nothing wrong with pointing out the current weaknesses of wind and solar, I'll keep it in mind. You haven't turned me into a naysayer, though, just as I haven't convinced you that wind and solar are a great tool in the toolkit. We're just repeating ourselves, so I'll let y'all carry on without me.

Now you don't need to do that.
Wind has shown some better performance and reliability/duration, with some other designs, usually on a smaller scale and not using the big blade towers.

Solar's best potential would be as orbital solar power stations, beaming that electricity down to Earth as microwaves and then converted back to electricity. Unfortunately that's a huge project, but would be a great incentive towards further space expansion/colonization/industry.

At the last place I worked, we helped develop a prototype for using ocean wave motion to generate electricity. Not up to date on how that tech has been going, but may have to look into.

My main point is we don't want to rush into new and not fully developed techs and at the same time do large scale abandon of what we have. It's only because the whales wouldn't reproduce fast enough to meet budding industrial needs a century and a half ago that we shifted to petroleum. And then discovered we could make more synthetic materials and get more fuel types from it than the whales ever would have provided anyway.

One resource we've dumped rather hastily is nuclear, which has a better efficiency and safety record than the public is lead to believe. Just ask our US Navy which makes extensive use of nuclear power-plants.