How much can renewable energy save us?

[Toddsterpatriot]

...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...

What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.

Just like nukes. They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.

And they say CO2 is the worst thing ever...gonna kill us all...but nuclear is worse.

Fukushima, and nuclear is damned expensive electricity.

Yeah, let's not use 50 year old technology, in a tidal wave exposed area with emergency generators on the ground floors. Good point.

 

[Old Rocks]

We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program

Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.

Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.

It was safe
safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
both were proven to completely self limiting

Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale

The pluses are many

No need for large amounts of water for cooling
runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
is self limiting
can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
can be buried underground
will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365

Crap! We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.

In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.

And how many other nations have those subsidies? Not only that, I would like to see the subsidies end, solar and wind can make it on their own, now. It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.

And how many other nations have those subsidies?

Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies

Spain accumulated $27 billion in debt subsidizing wind and solar power, which greatly damaged the country’s economy. Green energy programs in Spain are estimated to have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, according to a study by a Spanish scholar funded by the Institute for Energy Research. Spanish economists determined that each green job created in the country cost taxpayers $770,000. Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent.

Spain’s Green Energy Production Crippled Without Subsidy Crutch

The most recent onshore wind farm contracts awarded under the scheme, early last year, were at prices of about £80 per megawatt hour (MWh) – more than double current market prices of about £35/MWh. Consumers will fund the difference through green levies on their energy bills.

Revealed: the great wind farm tax 'con'

It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.

The average German pays 39 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity due to intense fiscal support for green energy. The average American only spends 10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Shouldn't all that cheap wind and solar give Germany rates cheaper than ours rather than nearly 4 times ours?

That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more. The economies of scale and the amount of research that decreased the prices of solar and wind.

World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind

That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more.

They stupidly wasted money on "green energy" in the past.
If they had waited until now, their rates would be lower than ours?

When will we see Germany's rates, for instance, drop from 4 times the rates in the US down to merely double our rates? Soon? Never?

Let's hear your prediction.

No, they did not. And you might have a look at what the latitude of Germany is. Solar is fine there in the summer, not so good in the winter. The large array solar panel setups in Germany and many other places created the demand and competition in the solar industry that has resulted in the very cheap panels of today. Not money wasted at all, in the larger view.

Here in the US, where we have been putting a lot of renewables on the grid, the increase in costs has been less steep than where we have not.

No, they did not.

Their excellent investments are what led to their rates being 4 times ours?
Good to know.

And you might have a look at what the latitude of Germany is. Solar is fine there in the summer, not so good in the winter.

Hmmmm.....sounds like a crappy investment again.
Maybe they should have looked at their latitude?

 

[Old Rocks]

...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...

What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.

Just like nukes. They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.

And they say CO2 is the worst thing ever...gonna kill us all...but nuclear is worse.

Fukushima, and nuclear is damned expensive electricity.

Yeah, let's not use 50 year old technology, in a tidal wave exposed area with emergency generators on the ground floors. Good point.

And how many reactors do we have here in the US with similar unrecognized vulnerabilities? Like many of the spent rod ponds have five times the number of rods in them as they were designed for. Many are in the area affected by the Quake of 1812. Are they designed for that kind of stress? Have we looked with the new technologies for hidden faults?

PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant

Under the proposal, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County would be retired by PG&E after its current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating licenses expire in November 2024 and August 2025.

The power produced by Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors would be replaced with investment in a greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage, PG&E said. The proposal is contingent on a number of regulatory actions, including approvals from the California Public Utilities Commission.


The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built against a seaside cliff near Avila Beach, provides 2,160 megawatts of electricity for Central and Northern California — enough to power more than 1.7 million homes.

Tuesday’s announcement comes after a long debate over the fate of the plant, which sits near several earthquake fault lines. The Hosgri Fault, located three miles from Diablo Canyon, was discovered in 1971, three years after construction of the plant began.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...

What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.

Just like nukes. They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.

And they say CO2 is the worst thing ever...gonna kill us all...but nuclear is worse.

Fukushima, and nuclear is damned expensive electricity.

Yeah, let's not use 50 year old technology, in a tidal wave exposed area with emergency generators on the ground floors. Good point.

And how many reactors do we have here in the US with similar unrecognized vulnerabilities? Like many of the spent rod ponds have five times the number of rods in them as they were designed for. Many are in the area affected by the Quake of 1812. Are they designed for that kind of stress? Have we looked with the new technologies for hidden faults?

PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant

Under the proposal, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County would be retired by PG&E after its current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating licenses expire in November 2024 and August 2025.

The power produced by Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors would be replaced with investment in a greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage, PG&E said. The proposal is contingent on a number of regulatory actions, including approvals from the California Public Utilities Commission.


The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built against a seaside cliff near Avila Beach, provides 2,160 megawatts of electricity for Central and Northern California — enough to power more than 1.7 million homes.

Tuesday’s announcement comes after a long debate over the fate of the plant, which sits near several earthquake fault lines. The Hosgri Fault, located three miles from Diablo Canyon, was discovered in 1971, three years after construction of the plant began.

Like many of the spent rod ponds have five times the number of rods in them as they were designed for.

Who is to blame for that?

The power produced by Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors would be replaced with investment in a greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage

At least their brownouts will be green......

 

[Skull Pilot]

and then there's this

Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance

In summary

Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.

The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.

Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.

darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.

However, technology is still, improving all the time.

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

 

[Skull Pilot]

and then there's this

Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance

In summary

Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.

The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.

Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.

darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.

However, technology is still, improving all the time.

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

Silly ass, if the windmill produces electricity at half the cost of the coal fired plant, then it is a good investment. Not only that, the dropping cost of the grid storage batteries will make both solar and wind 24/7.

Sorry but the only reason to build windmills are the tax subsidies

Warren Buffet, the left's favorite Wall street mogul agrees

 

[Skull Pilot]

We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program

Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.

Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.

It was safe
safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
both were proven to completely self limiting

Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale

The pluses are many

No need for large amounts of water for cooling
runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
is self limiting
can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
can be buried underground
will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365

Crap! We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.

In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.

Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech. We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting

but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see

and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too

 

[Skull Pilot]

Pandora's Promise

The Great Green Meltdown -- How Economic Arguments Against Nuclear Highlight Environmentalist Delusions

Top Climate Scientists Urge Support of Nuclear Power -- Letter Calls for ‘Fresh Approach’ to Nuclear in the 21st Century

 

[sealybobo]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

 

[danielpalos]

and then there's this

Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance

In summary

Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.

The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.

Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.

darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.

However, technology is still, improving all the time.

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and then there's this

Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance

In summary

Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.

The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.

Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.

darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.

However, technology is still, improving all the time.

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.

it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

 

[sealybobo]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

I challenge those numbers. 1℅ oil?

 

[Old Rocks]

and then there's this

Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance

In summary

Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.

The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.

Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.

darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.

However, technology is still, improving all the time.

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

And you cannot seem to understand that we have the technology to make that intermittent power 24/7.

 

[Old Rocks]

We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program

Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.

Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.

It was safe
safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
both were proven to completely self limiting

Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale

The pluses are many

No need for large amounts of water for cooling
runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
is self limiting
can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
can be buried underground
will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365

Crap! We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.

In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.

Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech. We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting

but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see

and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too

But, you should know that Texas produces about four times more wind power than 3rd place California and three times more than 2nd place Iowa. Pretty amazing for Texas, an energy juggernaut that also supplies about 28% of our natural gas and 37% of our crude oil. Texas has surged its wind power capacity 80% to 18,000 megawatts since 2010, with actual wind generation more than doubling over that time.

There are more than 10,000 wind turbines in Texas, and at times last winter, wind supplied 40-50% of the state’s electricity. The Great Texas Wind Boom has all come without much help from legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who backed out of his grandiose wind plans in the state.
The Great Texas Wind Power Boom

Texas now produces more wind power alone than 25 U.S. states produce from all power sources combined!

Although you can read "6 Reasons Why Texas Leads the Nation in Wind Power" for yourself, one advantage for Texas is that it's the only U.S. state with its own power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which covers about 75% of the state.

This means that new investments and building long-distance transmission lines are done as lawmakers and state regulators see fit, in contrast to the political fighting that often block other ambitious long-distance transmission projects that must cross state lines. "Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."

I guess you should explain all of that to those ultra-liberal Texans.

 

[sealybobo]

We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program

Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.

Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.

It was safe
safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
both were proven to completely self limiting

Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale

The pluses are many

No need for large amounts of water for cooling
runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
is self limiting
can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
can be buried underground
will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365

Crap! We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.

In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.

Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech. We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting

but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see

and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too

But, you should know that Texas produces about four times more wind power than 3rd place California and three times more than 2nd place Iowa. Pretty amazing for Texas, an energy juggernaut that also supplies about 28% of our natural gas and 37% of our crude oil. Texas has surged its wind power capacity 80% to 18,000 megawatts since 2010, with actual wind generation more than doubling over that time.

There are more than 10,000 wind turbines in Texas, and at times last winter, wind supplied 40-50% of the state’s electricity. The Great Texas Wind Boom has all come without much help from legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who backed out of his grandiose wind plans in the state.
The Great Texas Wind Power Boom

Texas now produces more wind power alone than 25 U.S. states produce from all power sources combined!

Although you can read "6 Reasons Why Texas Leads the Nation in Wind Power" for yourself, one advantage for Texas is that it's the only U.S. state with its own power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which covers about 75% of the state.

This means that new investments and building long-distance transmission lines are done as lawmakers and state regulators see fit, in contrast to the political fighting that often block other ambitious long-distance transmission projects that must cross state lines. "Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."

I guess you should explain all of that to those ultra-liberal Texans.

Republican idiots deny global warming meanwhile the corporations just didn't want to pay to clean up their pollution. Seems pretty obvious to me. And instead of admitting it they continue to deny but slowly you see red states embracing the green technology they mocked.

Like I said yesterday, thanks Solyndra for paving the way.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and then there's this

Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance

In summary

Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.

The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.

Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.

darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.

However, technology is still, improving all the time.

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

And you cannot seem to understand that we have the technology to make that intermittent power 24/7.

Yes convert the AC to DC then convert the Dc to AC and transmit it over very long distances and then still need fossil fuel power generation to make up the difference

 

[Skull Pilot]

We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program

Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.

Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.

It was safe
safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
both were proven to completely self limiting

Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale

The pluses are many

No need for large amounts of water for cooling
runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
is self limiting
can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
can be buried underground
will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365

Crap! We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.

In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.

Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech. We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting

but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see

and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too

But, you should know that Texas produces about four times more wind power than 3rd place California and three times more than 2nd place Iowa. Pretty amazing for Texas, an energy juggernaut that also supplies about 28% of our natural gas and 37% of our crude oil. Texas has surged its wind power capacity 80% to 18,000 megawatts since 2010, with actual wind generation more than doubling over that time.

There are more than 10,000 wind turbines in Texas, and at times last winter, wind supplied 40-50% of the state’s electricity. The Great Texas Wind Boom has all come without much help from legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who backed out of his grandiose wind plans in the state.
The Great Texas Wind Power Boom

Texas now produces more wind power alone than 25 U.S. states produce from all power sources combined!

Although you can read "6 Reasons Why Texas Leads the Nation in Wind Power" for yourself, one advantage for Texas is that it's the only U.S. state with its own power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which covers about 75% of the state.

This means that new investments and building long-distance transmission lines are done as lawmakers and state regulators see fit, in contrast to the political fighting that often block other ambitious long-distance transmission projects that must cross state lines. "Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."

I guess you should explain all of that to those ultra-liberal Texans.

Doesn't matter wind has not succeeded anywhere in Europe there is no reason to think it will be any different here

 

[danielpalos]

darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.

However, technology is still, improving all the time.

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.

it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds

we have a lot of land. a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.