The Green New Deal’s Impossible Electric Grid

The Purge

Platinum Member
Aug 16, 2018
17,881
7,860
400
Does her renewable energy ideas include extending Daylight Savings Time several more hours to gather more sunlight?
Perhaps huge electric fans blowing on the Wind Turbines during slack times.
Yeah, that’ll work!....

The Democrats’ Green New Deal calls for a fully renewable electric power grid. Regardless of the economic or political challenges of bringing this about, it is likely technologically impossible.

An electric power grid involves second-by-second balancing between generated supply and consumer demand. In the case of a sudden imbalance—such as from the loss of a generator’s output—all the remaining generators on the grid instantaneously pool together. Each one pitches in a small part of the required power to make up for the lost generator fast enough to keep supply and demand balanced.

This doesn’t work for wind and solar because you can’t spontaneously increase wind or sunshine. Hydro power is limited and unevenly distributed around the country. And for safety reasons, nuclear power—even if the Green New Dealers accepted it—can’t be cranked up to neutralize imbalances. Nor can consumer demand be suddenly reduced enough.

Fossil-fuel turbines, by contrast, very naturally compensate for sudden supply outages. The inertia of the spinning mass of rotors provides the extra energy needed to compensate for the loss for the first few seconds. (Wind-rotor inertia is too short-lived.) Meanwhile the generators’ on-line reserve capacity kicks in, giving a rapid boost in power output to prevent the turbines from slowing down. That substitute power, called “governor response,” lasts as long as 15 minutes. During that time a single replacement generator ramps up to compensate entirely for the loss. All the turbines on the grid are thereby restored to their original speed, and the governor response is rearmed for the next disturbance.

An all-renewables grid would require prohibitively expensive battery storage to compensate for sudden power losses. Even with batteries, the lost power would have to be fed through “inverters”

(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
 
Was more then laughing when I read the 100% renewable part of that crazy crap called the Green New Deal. The sun does not shine at night. The wind does not always blow even if some would like to think it does.

At today's electrical demands it would require an area about the size of California covered by wind turbines and solar cells to meet it. Add in electric trains and most of the U.S. with electric vehicles and that land used would jump to three times the size. Add in heating, manufacturing and others and the size is even worse.

Even if everything somehow worked out there would be serious brown outs or blackouts almost daily.

Nothing like going back in time. Might as well suggest horse and buggy days. Oh forgot horses also fart.
 
YAWN

Once again the idea that no substitution to oil and coal exists, and that is his strength. Imagine the things considered impossible by people like him? And, what motivates them?
 
YAWN

Once again the idea that no substitution to oil and coal exists, and that is his strength. Imagine the things considered impossible by people like him? And, what motivates them?

Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free
 
YAWN

Once again the idea that no substitution to oil and coal exists, and that is his strength. Imagine the things considered impossible by people like him? And, what motivates them?

Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free

Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.
 
YAWN

Once again the idea that no substitution to oil and coal exists, and that is his strength. Imagine the things considered impossible by people like him? And, what motivates them?

Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free

Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer
 
YAWN

Once again the idea that no substitution to oil and coal exists, and that is his strength. Imagine the things considered impossible by people like him? And, what motivates them?

Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free

Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA
 
YAWN

Once again the idea that no substitution to oil and coal exists, and that is his strength. Imagine the things considered impossible by people like him? And, what motivates them?

Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free

Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them.

In short there will be winners and losers if the climate changes just like there is with everything.

But the fact that people aren't calling for a scaling up of nuclear power, which is the only GHG free source of power that we have currently that can meet or even exceed the power needs of the population, across the globe tells me people aren't really serious about cutting GHGs as they say they are
 
YAWN

Once again the idea that no substitution to oil and coal exists, and that is his strength. Imagine the things considered impossible by people like him? And, what motivates them?

Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free

Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them.

In short there will be winners and losers if the climate changes just like there is with everything.

But the fact that people aren't calling for a scaling up of nuclear power, which is the only GHG free source of power that we have currently that can meet or even exceed the power needs of the population, across the globe tells me people aren't really serious about cutting GHGs as they say they are

Most people equate nuclear power plants with 3-mile Island and Chernobyl, even before the tsunami in Japan.
 
Last edited:
Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free

Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them.

In short there will be winners and losers if the climate changes just like there is with everything.

But the fact that people aren't calling for a scaling up of nuclear power, which is the only GHG free source of power that we have currently that can meet or even exceed the power needs of the population, across the globe tells me people aren't really serious about cutting GHGs as they say they are

"Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them"

This ^^^ is evidence you believe the propaganda of the Coal and Oil lobby, and you're not worth wasting my time or energy discussing the issue with you.
 
Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them.

In short there will be winners and losers if the climate changes just like there is with everything.

But the fact that people aren't calling for a scaling up of nuclear power, which is the only GHG free source of power that we have currently that can meet or even exceed the power needs of the population, across the globe tells me people aren't really serious about cutting GHGs as they say they are

"Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them"

This ^^^ is evidence you believe the propaganda of the Coal and Oil lobby, and you're not worth wasting my time or energy discussing the issue with you.

It's not evidence of anything except my skepticism.

I'd love to see the world get off of fossil fuels and there is one way we can start doing that today but since that option is off the table I have to wonder how scared are the doomsayers that something catastrophic is going to happen?
 
Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free

Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them.

In short there will be winners and losers if the climate changes just like there is with everything.

But the fact that people aren't calling for a scaling up of nuclear power, which is the only GHG free source of power that we have currently that can meet or even exceed the power needs of the population, across the globe tells me people aren't really serious about cutting GHGs as they say they are

Most people equate nuclear power plants with 3-mile Island and Chernobyl, even before the tsunami in Japan.
Most people as usual are wrong the fact is we stopped advanced research on nuclear power in the 70's
 
Oh they exist but to think that intermittent power sources will ever produce enough power to fully operate a 100% fossil fuel free society is ridiculous

Now if we throw nuclear power into the mix I would agree thsat we could indeed become virtually ( not completely) fossil fuel free

Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them.

In short there will be winners and losers if the climate changes just like there is with everything.

But the fact that people aren't calling for a scaling up of nuclear power, which is the only GHG free source of power that we have currently that can meet or even exceed the power needs of the population, across the globe tells me people aren't really serious about cutting GHGs as they say they are

Most people equate nuclear power plants with 3-mile Island and Chernobyl, even before the tsunami in Japan.

At 3 mile island the final containment system worked.

Chernobyl does not equate to Western Nuclear technology.

Fukishima required a 30 ft tall wall of water and 72 hours of the people in charge doing everything wrong.

The simple fact is with current technology you would need a massive increase in nuclear power to meet base load, and even then you would still need natural gas plants to handle surges and balancing issues.

Plus you would need a generational change in power grid controls to handle the massive increase in intermittent power from wind and solar.
 
Not entirely on point, but below is a post I made this morning to one who claims AGW is only a hypothesis:

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

The deniers have no fall back position if we ignore the data by Science and even the Dept.of Defense on AGW.

Of course it will not entirely replace fossil fuel, in our lifetime. I read in popular science an article on the new generations of nuclear power plants. Hydrogen too is a possible alternative if one has imagination and sees huge amount of hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them.

In short there will be winners and losers if the climate changes just like there is with everything.

But the fact that people aren't calling for a scaling up of nuclear power, which is the only GHG free source of power that we have currently that can meet or even exceed the power needs of the population, across the globe tells me people aren't really serious about cutting GHGs as they say they are

Most people equate nuclear power plants with 3-mile Island and Chernobyl, even before the tsunami in Japan.

At 3 mile island the final containment system worked.

Chernobyl does not equate to Western Nuclear technology.

Fukishima required a 30 ft tall wall of water and 72 hours of the people in charge doing everything wrong.

The simple fact is with current technology you would need a massive increase in nuclear power to meet base load, and even then you would still need natural gas plants to handle surges and balancing issues.

Plus you would need a generational change in power grid controls to handle the massive increase in intermittent power from wind and solar.

If we had continued our nuclear power research we would have safer, smaller, modular reactors which would mean a decentralization of our power grid that would increase reliability. Power could be generated at the town or city level with each mini grid able to operate independently most of the time and with more options of rerouting power to areas where the grid fails or is under repair
 
One can agree with those points and still not think there will be a some sort of biblical global catastrophe because the earth is a few degrees warmer

That's you opinion, here's are others for your review:

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here’s Why a Few Degrees of Global Warming Is a Really Big Deal

Future of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Yeah I'm sure the Climate reality project is completely unbiased and the government is not very credible as climate change means more revenue and more control for them.

In short there will be winners and losers if the climate changes just like there is with everything.

But the fact that people aren't calling for a scaling up of nuclear power, which is the only GHG free source of power that we have currently that can meet or even exceed the power needs of the population, across the globe tells me people aren't really serious about cutting GHGs as they say they are

Most people equate nuclear power plants with 3-mile Island and Chernobyl, even before the tsunami in Japan.

At 3 mile island the final containment system worked.

Chernobyl does not equate to Western Nuclear technology.

Fukishima required a 30 ft tall wall of water and 72 hours of the people in charge doing everything wrong.

The simple fact is with current technology you would need a massive increase in nuclear power to meet base load, and even then you would still need natural gas plants to handle surges and balancing issues.

Plus you would need a generational change in power grid controls to handle the massive increase in intermittent power from wind and solar.

If we had continued our nuclear power research we would have safer, smaller, modular reactors which would mean a decentralization of our power grid that would increase reliability. Power could be generated at the town or city level with each mini grid able to operate independently most of the time and with more options of rerouting power to areas where the grid fails or is under repair

Still not sure if Modular reactors are the way to go, but there have been improvements in even the larger scale reactors.

The other thing is people have learned from Fukishima and have bolstered the requirements for emergency power, and the resiliency of that emergency power.
 

Forum List

Back
Top