Frozen wind turbines hamper Texas power output

[flacaltenn]

Well, they need it once every forty years or so, right? I guess we can forgive that.

What alternatives do you THINK are actual alternatives? Wind and solar are SUPPLEMENTS, never alternatives. Because they cannot be RELIED ON for grid power. Solar is only good for 6 to 8 hours a day depending on lattitude, clouds, precip, and ICE and snow ALSO !!!...

And wind is so entirely flaky, it cannot be scheduled for contracts at all.. Often functionally GONE for 2 or 4 days in a week or in the dead of night.

THESE are your "Green alternatives".. To quote James Hansen, the godfather of Global Warming, --

"If you think you're gonna fix GWarming with just wind and solar -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny",.

YOUR PARTY is apparently a bunch of Tooth Fairy believers. Who SEEM to want to kill off more of the population by BANNING OUR STABLE GRID GENERATION -- before they find a better replacement for than the Tooth Fairy...

 

[ding]

Mother Nature defeats us all the time, one way or the other. This is just another one of her little love pats.

I think this goes to the question of reliability. Wind and solar are more susceptible to disruptions than the other technologies.

I don't. Lines going down during wind, snow and ice storms are a regular part of winter where it gets cold, no matter how it's generated.

Correct. Which is why moonglow's argument that icing is not unique to generating electricity is spurious.

As for the question of reliability - setting icing aside which has been a major world wide disruption of solar and wind this winter - wind and solar are inherently less reliable than traditional power generation technologies because neither is a 24/7/365 technology. They operate in the 50% or less utilization range the last I looked.

Don't they store it for slack times? Don't you think the technology will improve, just as all other technologies have done?

I don't believe they are storing it at the generation sites but I could be wrong. As for the icing I believe they already have a heat trace technology they can apply but it is expensive because they need to take the blades down to add the coating. I have no idea why they ever installed them without freeze protection in the first place. But they did and so did the Germans and they are considered the world's leader in wind. As for the inherent inefficiency of solar and wind (aka the wind not blowing and sun not shining) there's nothing they can do about that. To me these are technologies that should never be our primary source. Relying on these technologies for peak load seems to be a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Is it being used for peak load? I didn't know that was the plan. It would be awesome if all renewable sources could be used that don't pollute our world further, though. They're looking into tidal energy, as well.
Posters who are pointing to wind power as a failure due to a once in a hundred year weather event is not sensible, though. Catastrophes happen. Mother Nature always wins.

That's my understanding of the plan. What part of no more fossil fuels am I not understanding?

Yes, catastrophes happen. That has nothing to do with poorly thought out aims which will result in predictable surprises and are knee jerk reactions to a problem we don't have.

I understand you are a Texan, so naturally you support your state's greatest natural resource, but it's fucking up the planet, ding.

Actually it's not. And you have no first hand understanding or knowledge of what you are talking about. You have blindly accepted this belief on the authority of others but have never really given it the study and consideration it deserves.

The reality is no other industry has done more to improve man's standard of living than the energy industry. If anything we should be producing more energy to raise the standard of living for others. How's that for your moral dilemma?

 

[flacaltenn]

The irony of this event is oh so delicious

Nearly half of Texas' installed wind power generation capacity has been offline because of frozen wind turbines in West Texas, according to Texas grid operators.

Wind farms across the state generate up to a combined 25,100 megawatts of energy. But unusually moist winter conditions in West Texas brought on by the weekend's freezing rain and historically low temperatures have iced many of those wind turbines to a halt.

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

Where's the "irony"?

Check Weatherman2020's post on this earlier. He illustrated with helicopter spraying petrichemical deicer on the wind turbines to get rid of the ice so they could make green energy.

But seriously, is this a matter of ice on the blades?

One of our local radio stations has had a shitty signal lately which I strongly suspect is the effect of de-icers on the antenna not working. Ice will fuck up things that need to be smooth as it changes the shape. Anyone who subscribes to satellite TV probably knows this too. And of course in the case of a propeller it changes the whole weight and balance.

Wind turbine blades should have de-icers on them, at least if they're in a climate where ice is likely. And maybe they do but not in Texas.

When Maine had the Mother of all ice storms in 1998, very few people had generators; even most gas stations didn't, which was causing the electric crews called in to help to run out of gas. 3" of ice encased the state; transmission lines fell like a row of dominoes, electric was down for a week and a half. Most people around here have wells, so along with the misery of no lights, no heat, no tv, and living on devilled ham sandwiches, most people also had no running water. We tried melting buckets of snow to flush the toilet, but it was too damned cold in the house for it to melt. After that storm, a lot of people started investing in pellet stoves or generators and most gas stations now have enough backup to at least pump gas (and hopefully make coffee). They're not expecting anything like it for a hundred years. Maybe Texas, too, will start planning for the unforeseen. It seems like defrosters on the turbines should be standard, at any rate.

Very cool, I'm jealous. I love natural disasters, well at least the ones that involve power outages.

I have the same issue here. When the power goes out the first thing that comes to mind is: "You get ONE flush, make it count". Actually if there's a power outage it usually means the creek just across the way is swollen with water, so I'll take a bucket over there to refill the toilet tank. For drinking and cooking I have backup stored water to tide me over until if need be I can drive up the road to a local spring. Wood stove and/or propane camping stove for cooking. If it's arctic weather and the reefer is off I can just store food out in the car. That's why I like power outages -- it makes ya get creative. And if you live in a lighted area (I don't any more) you get to see stars.

What does flushes have to do with electrical power? You on pumped sewage or something? This AINT FUNNY.. The whole Green Raw Deal is built on dreams and hummingbird farts. People WILL DIE if we over produced and over emphasize wind and solar as the primary generators that THEY ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE?

Bonus question.. Even in a cloudless, weatherless, area for solar like Tucson, how many hours a day is the sun in the sky? How many hours a week does the wind blow?

Dont it bug you to have your politicians promoting absolute wet dreams as energy policy???

 

[HenryBHough]

Where's the "irony"?

WOOOOSSSSHHHHHHHHH!

 

[OldLady]

Mother Nature defeats us all the time, one way or the other. This is just another one of her little love pats.

I think this goes to the question of reliability. Wind and solar are more susceptible to disruptions than the other technologies.

I don't. Lines going down during wind, snow and ice storms are a regular part of winter where it gets cold, no matter how it's generated.

Correct. Which is why moonglow's argument that icing is not unique to generating electricity is spurious.

As for the question of reliability - setting icing aside which has been a major world wide disruption of solar and wind this winter - wind and solar are inherently less reliable than traditional power generation technologies because neither is a 24/7/365 technology. They operate in the 50% or less utilization range the last I looked.

Don't they store it for slack times? Don't you think the technology will improve, just as all other technologies have done?

I don't believe they are storing it at the generation sites but I could be wrong. As for the icing I believe they already have a heat trace technology they can apply but it is expensive because they need to take the blades down to add the coating. I have no idea why they ever installed them without freeze protection in the first place. But they did and so did the Germans and they are considered the world's leader in wind. As for the inherent inefficiency of solar and wind (aka the wind not blowing and sun not shining) there's nothing they can do about that. To me these are technologies that should never be our primary source. Relying on these technologies for peak load seems to be a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Is it being used for peak load? I didn't know that was the plan. It would be awesome if all renewable sources could be used that don't pollute our world further, though. They're looking into tidal energy, as well.
Posters who are pointing to wind power as a failure due to a once in a hundred year weather event is not sensible, though. Catastrophes happen. Mother Nature always wins.

That's my understanding of the plan. What part of no more fossil fuels am I not understanding?

Yes, catastrophes happen. That has nothing to do with poorly thought out aims which will result in predictable surprises and are knee jerk reactions to a problem we don't have.

I understand you are a Texan, so naturally you support your state's greatest natural resource, but it's fucking up the planet, ding.

Actually it's not. And you have no first hand understanding or knowledge of what you are talking about. You have blindly accepted this belief on the authority of others but have never really given it the study and consideration it deserves.

The reality is no other industry has done more to improve man's standard of living than the energy industry. If anything we should be producing more energy to raise the standard of living for others. How's that for your moral dilemma?

I have no moral dilemma. The coal and oil industry has fueled a tremendous improvement in our standard of living, yes. Now we can take some of our vastly improved understanding and apply it to technologies that are not so noxious to our planet.

 

[themirrorthief]

The irony of this event is oh so delicious

Nearly half of Texas' installed wind power generation capacity has been offline because of frozen wind turbines in West Texas, according to Texas grid operators.

Wind farms across the state generate up to a combined 25,100 megawatts of energy. But unusually moist winter conditions in West Texas brought on by the weekend's freezing rain and historically low temperatures have iced many of those wind turbines to a halt.

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

Where's the "irony"?

wind energy is a scam to freeze texans to death

 

[flacaltenn]

Mother Nature defeats us all the time, one way or the other. This is just another one of her little love pats.

I think this goes to the question of reliability. Wind and solar are more susceptible to disruptions than the other technologies.

I don't. Lines going down during wind, snow and ice storms are a regular part of winter where it gets cold, no matter how it's generated.

Correct. Which is why moonglow's argument that icing is not unique to generating electricity is spurious.

As for the question of reliability - setting icing aside which has been a major world wide disruption of solar and wind this winter - wind and solar are inherently less reliable than traditional power generation technologies because neither is a 24/7/365 technology. They operate in the 50% or less utilization range the last I looked.

Don't they store it for slack times? Don't you think the technology will improve, just as all other technologies have done?

I don't believe they are storing it at the generation sites but I could be wrong. As for the icing I believe they already have a heat trace technology they can apply but it is expensive because they need to take the blades down to add the coating. I have no idea why they ever installed them without freeze protection in the first place. But they did and so did the Germans and they are considered the world's leader in wind. As for the inherent inefficiency of solar and wind (aka the wind not blowing and sun not shining) there's nothing they can do about that. To me these are technologies that should never be our primary source. Relying on these technologies for peak load seems to be a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Is it being used for peak load? I didn't know that was the plan. It would be awesome if all renewable sources could be used that don't pollute our world further, though. They're looking into tidal energy, as well.
Posters who are pointing to wind power as a failure due to a once in a hundred year weather event is not sensible, though. Catastrophes happen. Mother Nature always wins.

That's my understanding of the plan. What part of no more fossil fuels am I not understanding?

Yes, catastrophes happen. That has nothing to do with poorly thought out aims which will result in predictable surprises and are knee jerk reactions to a problem we don't have.

I understand you are a Texan, so naturally you support your state's greatest natural resource, but it's fucking up the planet, ding.

Where are all the other badly named "alternatives"??? Because JUST wind and solar will kill people.

You like "biomass conversion"?? The Greens in England lobbied hard for that in the 90s believing it was "green and renewable" because it supposed to burn waste wood. Well, England doesnt have a LOT of waste wood. And when it came to their BACKYARDS -- these "biomass convertors" ended up being GARBAGE INCINERATORS !!!!!!! And NOW the PHONY enviros who fell for this cant get rid of them fast enough...

When you saying "killing the planet" -- I already know you'd burn hummingbird hearts if it got rid of nasty fossil fuel...

Quick question -- would appreciate an answer.. Did you know the US CO2 output is NOW back to early 1990s levels? Do you know HOW we got there WITHOUT dumb ass politicians defining our energy policy????

 

[themirrorthief]

Mother Nature defeats us all the time, one way or the other. This is just another one of her little love pats.

I think this goes to the question of reliability. Wind and solar are more susceptible to disruptions than the other technologies.

I don't. Lines going down during wind, snow and ice storms are a regular part of winter where it gets cold, no matter how it's generated.

Correct. Which is why moonglow's argument that icing is not unique to generating electricity is spurious.

As for the question of reliability - setting icing aside which has been a major world wide disruption of solar and wind this winter - wind and solar are inherently less reliable than traditional power generation technologies because neither is a 24/7/365 technology. They operate in the 50% or less utilization range the last I looked.

Don't they store it for slack times? Don't you think the technology will improve, just as all other technologies have done?

I don't believe they are storing it at the generation sites but I could be wrong. As for the icing I believe they already have a heat trace technology they can apply but it is expensive because they need to take the blades down to add the coating. I have no idea why they ever installed them without freeze protection in the first place. But they did and so did the Germans and they are considered the world's leader in wind. As for the inherent inefficiency of solar and wind (aka the wind not blowing and sun not shining) there's nothing they can do about that. To me these are technologies that should never be our primary source. Relying on these technologies for peak load seems to be a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Is it being used for peak load? I didn't know that was the plan. It would be awesome if all renewable sources could be used that don't pollute our world further, though. They're looking into tidal energy, as well.
Posters who are pointing to wind power as a failure due to a once in a hundred year weather event is not sensible, though. Catastrophes happen. Mother Nature always wins.

That's my understanding of the plan. What part of no more fossil fuels am I not understanding?

Yes, catastrophes happen. That has nothing to do with poorly thought out aims which will result in predictable surprises and are knee jerk reactions to a problem we don't have.

I understand you are a Texan, so naturally you support your state's greatest natural resource, but it's fucking up the planet, ding.

Actually it's not. And you have no first hand understanding or knowledge of what you are talking about. You have blindly accepted this belief on the authority of others but have never really given it the study and consideration it deserves.

The reality is no other industry has done more to improve man's standard of living than the energy industry. If anything we should be producing more energy to raise the standard of living for others. How's that for your moral dilemma?

I have no moral dilemma. The coal and oil industry has fueled a tremendous improvement in our standard of living, yes. Now we can take some of our vastly improved understanding and apply it to technologies that are not so noxious to our planet.

ass gas wont get it done dear liberal

 

[OldLady]

Well, they need it once every forty years or so, right? I guess we can forgive that.

What alternatives do you THINK are actual alternatives? Wind and solar are SUPPLEMENTS, never alternatives. Because they cannot be RELIED ON for grid power. Solar is only good for 6 to 8 hours a day depending on lattitude, clouds, precip, and ICE and snow ALSO !!!...

And wind is so entirely flaky, it cannot be scheduled for contracts at all.. Often functionally GONE for 2 or 4 a week or in the dead of night.

THESE are your "Green alternatives".. To quote James Hansen, the godfather of Global Warming, --

"If you think you're gonna fix GWarming with just wind and solar -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny",.

YOUR PARTY is apparently a bunch of Tooth Fairy believers. Who SEEM to want to kill off more of the population by BANNING OUR STABLE GRID GENERATION -- before they find a better replacement for than the Tooth Fairy...

I don't think we should do that and I doubt if anyone is advocating it. You don't have to be insulting about it, either. I'm not a Democrat. I don't have a party. What is wrong with you lately?

 

[Leo123]

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

Oh Brother!! Talk about irony!! They're probably spraying some kind of fossil-fuel treatment too. Water would not cut it.

 

[ding]

Mother Nature defeats us all the time, one way or the other. This is just another one of her little love pats.

I think this goes to the question of reliability. Wind and solar are more susceptible to disruptions than the other technologies.

I don't. Lines going down during wind, snow and ice storms are a regular part of winter where it gets cold, no matter how it's generated.

Correct. Which is why moonglow's argument that icing is not unique to generating electricity is spurious.

As for the question of reliability - setting icing aside which has been a major world wide disruption of solar and wind this winter - wind and solar are inherently less reliable than traditional power generation technologies because neither is a 24/7/365 technology. They operate in the 50% or less utilization range the last I looked.

Don't they store it for slack times? Don't you think the technology will improve, just as all other technologies have done?

I don't believe they are storing it at the generation sites but I could be wrong. As for the icing I believe they already have a heat trace technology they can apply but it is expensive because they need to take the blades down to add the coating. I have no idea why they ever installed them without freeze protection in the first place. But they did and so did the Germans and they are considered the world's leader in wind. As for the inherent inefficiency of solar and wind (aka the wind not blowing and sun not shining) there's nothing they can do about that. To me these are technologies that should never be our primary source. Relying on these technologies for peak load seems to be a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Is it being used for peak load? I didn't know that was the plan. It would be awesome if all renewable sources could be used that don't pollute our world further, though. They're looking into tidal energy, as well.
Posters who are pointing to wind power as a failure due to a once in a hundred year weather event is not sensible, though. Catastrophes happen. Mother Nature always wins.

That's my understanding of the plan. What part of no more fossil fuels am I not understanding?

Yes, catastrophes happen. That has nothing to do with poorly thought out aims which will result in predictable surprises and are knee jerk reactions to a problem we don't have.

I understand you are a Texan, so naturally you support your state's greatest natural resource, but it's fucking up the planet, ding.

Actually it's not. And you have no first hand understanding or knowledge of what you are talking about. You have blindly accepted this belief on the authority of others but have never really given it the study and consideration it deserves.

The reality is no other industry has done more to improve man's standard of living than the energy industry. If anything we should be producing more energy to raise the standard of living for others. How's that for your moral dilemma?

I have no moral dilemma. The coal and oil industry has fueled a tremendous improvement in our standard of living, yes. Now we can take some of our vastly improved understanding and apply it to technologies that are not so noxious to our planet.

The moral dilemma is that you would remove cheaper energy as an option for the poorer regions.

CO2 is not noxious. CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle that all life on the planet depends on. You have absolutely no basis for that statement other than to say you were told that. You can't give me any reason other than you say so. I on the other hand can go into exquisite detail on the earth's climate system and the role GHG play in the climate system. I understand science. I understand what drives our climate.

 

[Leo123]

I don't think we should do that and I doubt if anyone is advocating it. You don't have to be insulting about it, either. I'm not a Democrat. I don't have a party. What is wrong with you lately?

Biden cut the pipeline off at the knees!!! Thousands of union jobs, truckers, pipeline workers, the various restaurants, stores that benefited from the influx of cash and Kerry told them to just go get another job!! Talk about insulting!!

 

[OldLady]

They're looking into tidal energy as well. The technology will improve. By chipping away at demand for carbon fuels by using renewable, clean energy where possible, everyone wins.,

 

[OldLady]

Mother Nature defeats us all the time, one way or the other. This is just another one of her little love pats.

I think this goes to the question of reliability. Wind and solar are more susceptible to disruptions than the other technologies.

I don't. Lines going down during wind, snow and ice storms are a regular part of winter where it gets cold, no matter how it's generated.

Correct. Which is why moonglow's argument that icing is not unique to generating electricity is spurious.

As for the question of reliability - setting icing aside which has been a major world wide disruption of solar and wind this winter - wind and solar are inherently less reliable than traditional power generation technologies because neither is a 24/7/365 technology. They operate in the 50% or less utilization range the last I looked.

Don't they store it for slack times? Don't you think the technology will improve, just as all other technologies have done?

I don't believe they are storing it at the generation sites but I could be wrong. As for the icing I believe they already have a heat trace technology they can apply but it is expensive because they need to take the blades down to add the coating. I have no idea why they ever installed them without freeze protection in the first place. But they did and so did the Germans and they are considered the world's leader in wind. As for the inherent inefficiency of solar and wind (aka the wind not blowing and sun not shining) there's nothing they can do about that. To me these are technologies that should never be our primary source. Relying on these technologies for peak load seems to be a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Is it being used for peak load? I didn't know that was the plan. It would be awesome if all renewable sources could be used that don't pollute our world further, though. They're looking into tidal energy, as well.
Posters who are pointing to wind power as a failure due to a once in a hundred year weather event is not sensible, though. Catastrophes happen. Mother Nature always wins.

That's my understanding of the plan. What part of no more fossil fuels am I not understanding?

Yes, catastrophes happen. That has nothing to do with poorly thought out aims which will result in predictable surprises and are knee jerk reactions to a problem we don't have.

I understand you are a Texan, so naturally you support your state's greatest natural resource, but it's fucking up the planet, ding.

Actually it's not. And you have no first hand understanding or knowledge of what you are talking about. You have blindly accepted this belief on the authority of others but have never really given it the study and consideration it deserves.

The reality is no other industry has done more to improve man's standard of living than the energy industry. If anything we should be producing more energy to raise the standard of living for others. How's that for your moral dilemma?

I have no moral dilemma. The coal and oil industry has fueled a tremendous improvement in our standard of living, yes. Now we can take some of our vastly improved understanding and apply it to technologies that are not so noxious to our planet.

The moral dilemma is that you would remove cheaper energy as an option for the poorer regions.

CO2 is not noxious. CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle that all life on the planet depends on. You have absolutely no basis for that statement other than to say you were told that. You can't give me any reason other than you say so. I on the other hand can go into exquisite detail on the earth's climate system and the role GHG play in the climate system. I understand science. I understand what drives our climate.

Good for you, ding. Too bad with all that exquisite knowledge, you came up with the wrong conclusions.

 

[progressive hunter]

The irony of this event is oh so delicious

Nearly half of Texas' installed wind power generation capacity has been offline because of frozen wind turbines in West Texas, according to Texas grid operators.

Wind farms across the state generate up to a combined 25,100 megawatts of energy. But unusually moist winter conditions in West Texas brought on by the weekend's freezing rain and historically low temperatures have iced many of those wind turbines to a halt.

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

Where's the "irony"?

Check Weatherman2020's post on this earlier. He illustrated with helicopter spraying petrichemical deicer on the wind turbines to get rid of the ice so they could make green energy.

But seriously, is this a matter of ice on the blades?

One of our local radio stations has had a shitty signal lately which I strongly suspect is the effect of de-icers on the antenna not working. Ice will fuck up things that need to be smooth as it changes the shape. Anyone who subscribes to satellite TV probably knows this too. And of course in the case of a propeller it changes the whole weight and balance.

Wind turbine blades should have de-icers on them, at least if they're in a climate where ice is likely. And maybe they do but not in Texas.

When Maine had the Mother of all ice storms in 1998, very few people had generators; even most gas stations didn't, which was causing the electric crews called in to help to run out of gas. 3" of ice encased the state; transmission lines fell like a row of dominoes, electric was down for a week and a half. Most people around here have wells, so along with the misery of no lights, no heat, no tv, and living on devilled ham sandwiches, most people also had no running water. We tried melting buckets of snow to flush the toilet, but it was too damned cold in the house for it to melt. After that storm, a lot of people started investing in pellet stoves or generators and most gas stations now have enough backup to at least pump gas (and hopefully make coffee). They're not expecting anything like it for a hundred years. Maybe Texas, too, will start planning for the unforeseen. It seems like defrosters on the turbines should be standard, at any rate.

Very cool, I'm jealous. I love natural disasters, well at least the ones that involve power outages.

I have the same issue here. When the power goes out the first thing that comes to mind is: "You get ONE flush, make it count". Actually if there's a power outage it usually means the creek just across the way is swollen with water, so I'll take a bucket over there to refill the toilet tank. For drinking and cooking I have backup stored water to tide me over until if need be I can drive up the road to a local spring. Wood stove and/or propane camping stove for cooking. If it's arctic weather and the reefer is off I can just store food out in the car. That's why I like power outages -- it makes ya get creative. And if you live in a lighted area (I don't any more) you get to see stars.

your toilet runs on electricity???

 

[Leo123]

They're looking into tidal energy as well. The technology will improve. By chipping away at demand for carbon fuels by using renewable, clean energy where possible, everyone wins.,

"Renewable" energy only refers to the type such as.....Sun, Geothermal, Wind. It does not describe what is takes to harness these energies such as, constructing energy generation facilities, solar panels and that whole infrastructure of frames, stands, wiring, transformers, etc. Suffice to say, all of these supposed 'renewable' sources require some kind of non-renewable 'dirty' energy to make, maintain and distribute it. Gas and Oil need as little as a spark to unleash their energy.

 

[ding]

Mother Nature defeats us all the time, one way or the other. This is just another one of her little love pats.

I think this goes to the question of reliability. Wind and solar are more susceptible to disruptions than the other technologies.

I don't. Lines going down during wind, snow and ice storms are a regular part of winter where it gets cold, no matter how it's generated.

Correct. Which is why moonglow's argument that icing is not unique to generating electricity is spurious.

As for the question of reliability - setting icing aside which has been a major world wide disruption of solar and wind this winter - wind and solar are inherently less reliable than traditional power generation technologies because neither is a 24/7/365 technology. They operate in the 50% or less utilization range the last I looked.

Don't they store it for slack times? Don't you think the technology will improve, just as all other technologies have done?

I don't believe they are storing it at the generation sites but I could be wrong. As for the icing I believe they already have a heat trace technology they can apply but it is expensive because they need to take the blades down to add the coating. I have no idea why they ever installed them without freeze protection in the first place. But they did and so did the Germans and they are considered the world's leader in wind. As for the inherent inefficiency of solar and wind (aka the wind not blowing and sun not shining) there's nothing they can do about that. To me these are technologies that should never be our primary source. Relying on these technologies for peak load seems to be a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Is it being used for peak load? I didn't know that was the plan. It would be awesome if all renewable sources could be used that don't pollute our world further, though. They're looking into tidal energy, as well.
Posters who are pointing to wind power as a failure due to a once in a hundred year weather event is not sensible, though. Catastrophes happen. Mother Nature always wins.

That's my understanding of the plan. What part of no more fossil fuels am I not understanding?

Yes, catastrophes happen. That has nothing to do with poorly thought out aims which will result in predictable surprises and are knee jerk reactions to a problem we don't have.

I understand you are a Texan, so naturally you support your state's greatest natural resource, but it's fucking up the planet, ding.

Actually it's not. And you have no first hand understanding or knowledge of what you are talking about. You have blindly accepted this belief on the authority of others but have never really given it the study and consideration it deserves.

The reality is no other industry has done more to improve man's standard of living than the energy industry. If anything we should be producing more energy to raise the standard of living for others. How's that for your moral dilemma?

I have no moral dilemma. The coal and oil industry has fueled a tremendous improvement in our standard of living, yes. Now we can take some of our vastly improved understanding and apply it to technologies that are not so noxious to our planet.

The moral dilemma is that you would remove cheaper energy as an option for the poorer regions.

CO2 is not noxious. CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle that all life on the planet depends on. You have absolutely no basis for that statement other than to say you were told that. You can't give me any reason other than you say so. I on the other hand can go into exquisite detail on the earth's climate system and the role GHG play in the climate system. I understand science. I understand what drives our climate.

Good for you, ding. Too bad with all that exquisite knowledge, you came up with the wrong conclusions.

And why do you believe I came up with the wrong conclusions? You don't even know what my conclusions are or what they are based upon.

Before you go and get all snarky with me maybe you ought to ask yourself why it is you believe as you do. And if the only reason you can come up with is you were told to believe that then maybe you should consider how that reflects upon you. Because from where I stand you are not only an ignorant fuck, you are also an apathetic fuck. You can't be bothered to do your own work.

Now let me remind you that science is never settled. I am embracing that proud tradition whereas you might as well be a lemming.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, they need it once every forty years or so, right? I guess we can forgive that.

What alternatives do you THINK are actual alternatives? Wind and solar are SUPPLEMENTS, never alternatives. Because they cannot be RELIED ON for grid power. Solar is only good for 6 to 8 hours a day depending on lattitude, clouds, precip, and ICE and snow ALSO !!!...

And wind is so entirely flaky, it cannot be scheduled for contracts at all.. Often functionally GONE for 2 or 4 a week or in the dead of night.

THESE are your "Green alternatives".. To quote James Hansen, the godfather of Global Warming, --

"If you think you're gonna fix GWarming with just wind and solar -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny",.

YOUR PARTY is apparently a bunch of Tooth Fairy believers. Who SEEM to want to kill off more of the population by BANNING OUR STABLE GRID GENERATION -- before they find a better replacement for than the Tooth Fairy...

I don't think we should do that and I doubt if anyone is advocating it. You don't have to be insulting about it, either. I'm not a Democrat. I don't have a party. What is wrong with you lately?

I'm peeved that science and engineering have been politicized and so many folks have been entirely propagandized.. And scared SHITLESS that mental midgets like Bernie, AOC, and our GWarming Czar Ketchup Kerry are gonna be deconstructing our energy policy.

When you say "no one is advocating this" you're being entirely dishonest. I haven't changed. The question really is -- What is wrong with YOU lately?

 

[Leo123]

your toilet runs on electricity???

If you have a private well you typically need 220v to run the motor that runs the pump that pumps the water to your pressure tank. Without electricity you get 1 flush and then, no more water to flush. In the past I have filled up jugs of water to manually pour in the toilet to get the flush. Luckily, where I live, I can go out on the back forty to pee. #2 can be a bit dicey in the outback so I prefer to fill the toilet with water.

 

[progressive hunter]

your toilet runs on electricity???

If you have a private well you typically need 220v to run the motor that runs the pump that pumps the water to your pressure tank. Without electricity you get 1 flush and then, no more water to flush. In the past I have filled up jugs of water to manually pour in the toilet to get the flush. Luckily, where I live, I can go out on the back forty to pee. #2 can be a bit dicey in the outback so I prefer to fill the toilet with water.........Sorry for the real, raw facts.

ok that makes sense,,