US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity

Burlington, VT, population 42,000, now gets all of its energy from renewable sources, the first city of that size in the USA to achieve it. On average, that is. Some days they have to buy fossil fuel power, other days they export excess renewable power.

In Vermont a milestone in green-energy efforts - Metro - The Boston Globe

They buy power EVERYDAY fuzz for brains. The only renewable they have worth a damn in Vermont is HYDRO.. They can cash in on all those wind credits and subsidies and buy PAPER that says they own wind resources in Nebraska, but it doesn't provide a single ELECTRON from wind or solar on most days at 8PM at the local fire stations.

More solar in Burlington. These folks DESERVE to freeze their asses off after their wallets are emptied. Maybe they'll even turn green in the process...
 
I use solar to run my wells. Our power utility just jacked our prices up by 20%. I'm going to set up a much bigger solar grid next year. Solar makes sense for many Americans living in areas where the end justifies the means. As to the mega-solar projects, I think the jury is still out on those. We have one of the country's biggest here in the San Luis Valley. Large solar projects involve some complex science and they're not without their own detrimental effect on the environment, especially their gluttonous use of water for cooling. If people are concerned, they should do some homework. Overall, solar gets a passing grade from me.

Using solar or wind for pumping water is a great application. You might even do better if you beefed it up and took it completely off the grid..
 
Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO


Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?

Grid parity my ass. It works about 6 hours a day AT BEST...
It's a PEAKER technology to relieve summertime peak demand.
Good for 15 or 20% of the daytime peak..

When you pair it with natural gas, you have 100% non-polluting power plants! Sweet!

You ARE kidding -- Right?
Does solar scrub the pollutants right out of the nat gas burning?
How 'bout we just go with 50% ?? :lol:
 
Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.

With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.
 
Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO


Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?

Grid parity my ass. It works about 6 hours a day AT BEST...
It's a PEAKER technology to relieve summertime peak demand.
Good for 15 or 20% of the daytime peak..

When you pair it with natural gas, you have 100% non-polluting power plants! Sweet!

You ARE kidding -- Right?
Does solar scrub the pollutants right out of the nat gas burning?
How 'bout we just go with 50% ?? :lol:

Much less than coal.
 
Solar has come a long way. :thup:

I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk? He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
 
Solar has huge drawbacks beyond cost.

Question: How do you store the energy from solar for when the power is actually needed in the grid?

Answer: You cannot....unless there is an enormous waste in efficiency. There are a few experimental facilities that are super-heating a sludgy brine in pipes and then running water over the pipes to produce steam when the power is needed. Unfortunately the thermal energy is lost quickly and does not store readily.

Ditto trying to store kinetic energy. A huge loss of efficiency (i.e. Pump storage. Running water up a hill and then releasing it down a hill to spin a turbine when the power is actually needed).

Solar and wind will always be fairly minor adjuncts to primary power generation. Consumers demand power 24/7. What do you do when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing?

With both wind and solar your fucked. There is no way within the parameters of physics you can efficiently store the energy unless you convert the energy to matter and then back to energy again. Of course, if we could do that we wouldn't need wind and solar in the first place.
 
Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO


Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?

Grid parity my ass. It works about 6 hours a day AT BEST...
It's a PEAKER technology to relieve summertime peak demand.
Good for 15 or 20% of the daytime peak..

When you pair it with natural gas, you have 100% non-polluting power plants! Sweet!

Well, not 100%, burning it still produces carbon dioxide.
 
Solar has huge drawbacks beyond cost.

Question: How do you store the energy from solar for when the power is actually needed in the grid?

Answer: You cannot....unless there is an enormous waste in efficiency. There are a few experimental facilities that are super-heating a sludgy brine in pipes and then running water over the pipes to produce steam when the power is needed. Unfortunately the thermal energy is lost quickly and does not store readily.

Ditto trying to store kinetic energy. A huge loss of efficiency (i.e. Pump storage. Running water up a hill and then releasing it down a hill to spin a turbine when the power is actually needed).

Solar and wind will always be fairly minor adjuncts to primary power generation. Consumers demand power 24/7. What do you do when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing?

With both wind and solar your fucked. There is no way within the parameters of physics you can efficiently store the energy unless you convert the energy to matter and then back to energy again. Of course, if we could do that we wouldn't need wind and solar in the first place.

However, on a small or personal scale it can be quite effective. I would change my house to DC and use solar/wind if it were cost effective at all. I would look at it if i paid $.10 or $.12 per kwh, but since im significantly less, it would take 20 years just to break even. That is not a good ROI.
 
Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.

With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.

Are you serious?
 
Solar has huge drawbacks beyond cost.

Question: How do you store the energy from solar for when the power is actually needed in the grid?

Answer: You cannot....unless there is an enormous waste in efficiency. There are a few experimental facilities that are super-heating a sludgy brine in pipes and then running water over the pipes to produce steam when the power is needed. Unfortunately the thermal energy is lost quickly and does not store readily.

Ditto trying to store kinetic energy. A huge loss of efficiency (i.e. Pump storage. Running water up a hill and then releasing it down a hill to spin a turbine when the power is actually needed).

Solar and wind will always be fairly minor adjuncts to primary power generation. Consumers demand power 24/7. What do you do when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing?

With both wind and solar your fucked. There is no way within the parameters of physics you can efficiently store the energy unless you convert the energy to matter and then back to energy again. Of course, if we could do that we wouldn't need wind and solar in the first place.

However, on a small or personal scale it can be quite effective. I would change my house to DC and use solar/wind if it were cost effective at all. I would look at it if i paid $.10 or $.12 per kwh, but since im significantly less, it would take 20 years just to break even. That is not a good ROI.

Depends on what your present and future cost for electricity is. You can get a 5 kw system for 8K to10K. That is a grid tie system, so when the sun is down, you pull off the grid, during the day, you contribute to the grid. Add 2 kw to that system, and buy and EV and reduce the payback period by nearly half.
 
Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.

With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.

Are you serious?

Very serious.

Vanadium Redox VRB Flow Batteries Energy Storage Association
 

I doubt you ever READ the crap you post. Or actually consider the ENVIRONMENTAL consequences of it's adoption. Even doubt sometimes you understand what you are reading..

The cell voltage is 1.4-1.6 volts and cell power densities are 100’s mW/cm2 (although Prudent Energy reports their power densities are higher). The DC-DC efficiency of this battery has been reported in the range of 60-80%. According to EPRI, the vanadium redox battery is suitable for power systems in the range of 100 kW to 10 MW, with storage durations in the 2-8 hour range.

Why is that? Because you need a grain silo size vat filled with SULFURIC ACID to run a small farm from wind power with these things.
They are good for grid switch buffering. That's about it. And at 0.1milliWatt/cm3 -- this kind of power density is NEVER gonna be the basis of "grid scale storage" EPRI is trying to tell you that -- you ought to listen..

Can you imagine the Enviro Impact Report hearings on a having a virtual chemical storage facility every 10 miles in Tornado country? Think people..


vrbflowbatt_2.jpg
 
Here's what "Grid Scale" means in terms of this technology...

Energy Storage Innovation and EnerVault The Energy Collective

The current project, located in Turlock, California, will provide 250 kilowatts of power for four hours to Pacific Gas & Electric. It was supported by the DOE's storage demonstration program under the stimulus package, which provided $4.7 million in assistance. The flow battery will be co-located with a PV system and a water pump.
EnerVault_Storage_Tanks_Install.jpg

A storage tank is installed at EnerVault's first commercial site in Turlock, California. Image credit: EnerVault

That's 200 homes for 4 hours. An environmental clusterfuck of biblical proportions whether it's in tornado alley, the hurricane prone coast or earthquake zones. Greenies completely forget their principles when they decide to turn into engineers. They will RAPE and PILLAGE the planet to make their fairytale solutions work..
 
Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.

With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.

Are you serious?

Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
 
With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.

I was speaking of the wifi power, thats not viable, I know battery storage is, although Im not convinced its expense is worth the payback.
 

Forum List

Back
Top