Iowa Reaches Milestone on Wind-Energy Production - 64%

Love the elektra who - OOOPS - NOW agrees 100% with THIS thread, even though all his friends say the Opposite.. as he has for a Decade.
His Link




"Many of us might assume that the reason so much energy still comes from gas and coal power plants is simple economics: those fuels are cheaper. But though it was once true, that assumption has actually been Obliterated by a recent Decline in Solar and Wind Costs over the past Decade.

When it comes to the Cost of energy from New power plants, Onshore Wind and Solar are now the Cheapest sources—costing Less than as, Geothermal, Coal, or Nuclear..."""

- - - - - - - --

THANKS! YOU LOST.
AND THANKS FOR THE NEW SIG!
You link. Dummy, say federal subsidies are required for wind and solar
The federal government can also make direct investments in clean energy. Langer says one major way political leaders can ensure an energy transition is by providing consistent subsidies to solar and wind.
 
AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Yes, Iowa is saving money with wind power in several ways:
  • Lower electricity rates
    Iowa's electricity rates are lower than the national average, and wind energy is a major reason why.

  • Economic benefits
    Iowa's renewable energy industry has created jobs and economic opportunities for landowners and local governments.

  • Stronger counties
    Counties with wind energy projects are stronger economically than counties without.


 
Obviously not. I am stating that nothing runs forever. Nuclear, natural gas, coal all have to be shut down now and then. They are all of the class "Intermittent".
Exactly.
But OMG ""The wind doesn't Blow all the Time.""
How could they reach 64%?!!!
You mean we could have (Battery/other Storage) and ie, NG back up and still go Majority Renewable?
YES!
`
 
Last edited:
Exactly.
But OMG ""The wind doesn't Blow all the Time.""
How could they reach 64%?!!!
You mean we could have (Battery/other Storage) and ie, NG back up and still go Majority Renewable?
YES!
`
No. You cant go majority renewable if you need a majority of natural gas to provide the electricity that wind power does not provide.

Abu, wind and solar are total failures beyond niche circumstances.

Abu just claimed renewables dont work but they do work if we have natural gas?
 

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?​

abu afak

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky.​
We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021).​
How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon.​
I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in the debate.​
Two opinions:​
"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is particularly true above 60% or 80% decarbonization, when the costs of the renewables-only option rise sharply.​
Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60% decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80% or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options."..."​
-​
Some say 100% os possible, I don't see it any time soon without new technology.​
"...Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.​
So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?
That is the core of the dispute over 100% renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS."..."​
Last edited: Sep 9, 2022"""​
`​
 

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?​

abu afak

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky.​
We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021).​
How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon.​
I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in the debate.​
Two opinions:​
"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is particularly true above 60% or 80% decarbonization, when the costs of the renewables-only option rise sharply.​
Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60% decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80% or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options."..."​
-​
Some say 100% os possible, I don't see it any time soon without new technology.​
"...Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.​
So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?
That is the core of the dispute over 100% renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS."..."​
Last edited: Sep 9, 2022"""​
`​
You are an idiot.

No engineer or scientist claims we can go 100% carbon free

The biggest lie you tell is calling the world's largest heavy industry project, carbon free or neutral

Solar, wind, renewables are 100% failured
 
You are an idiot.

No engineer or scientist claims we can go 100% carbon free

The biggest lie you tell is calling the world's largest heavy industry project, carbon free or neutral

Solar, wind, renewables are 100% failured
You are full of shit and a Liar.

1. My opinion [stated above] is that we can get to "50-80%, not "100%."

2. I then posted Exerpts from Vox And Wiki proposing how we could get to 100%. eventually.

3. Solar and Wind are Not "failured" they now generate 17% of our power.
Solar increased efficiency and cost 85-90% in the 2010-2020 decade and continue to improve. (see my Two thread starts on this near the top of this section: 2020/2024).
That's how we get both cost and cleaner advances.

`
 
You are full of shit and a Liar.

1. My opinion [stated above] is that we can get to "50-80%, not "100%."

2. I then posted Exerpts from Vox And Wiki proposing how we could get to 100%. eventually.

3. Solar and Wind are Not "failured" they now generate 17% of our power.
Solar increased efficiency and cost 85-90% in the 2010-2020 decade and contune to improve. (see my Two thread starts on this near the top of this section: 2020/2024).
That's how we get both cost and cleaner advances.

`
Abu, you dont know shit. Installed capacity is 17%, that is in theory. Solar and wind do not provide 17% of our power.

How much did that cost and how much will it cost to maintain

Abu can not tell us how much we spent or how much more we have to spend because abu dont know shit

Watch abu's response, abu will not tell us how much we spent or how much more abu wants to spend
 
Abu, you dont know shit. Installed capacity is 17%, that is in theory. Solar and wind do not provide 17% of our power.
AI Overview

In the U.S., solar and wind power sources combined accounted for over 17% of electricity generation in 2024, surpassing coal for the first time. Wind energy alone contributed around 10% to U.S. electricity generation, while solar contributed a similar percentage.


How much did that cost and how much will it cost to maintain
I posted LCOE (Levelized cost) of solar a few times in the last few days. (see ie, my "Double the cost" thread and Lazard analysis)
Funny: I post LINKS for my claims, you fabricate yours.


Abu can not tell us how much we spent or how much more we have to spend because abu dont know shit
How much more for what exactly?
IAC, a ridicKulous Demand Detail FALLACY/Strawman. (An impossible Nebulous BS challenge of time and degree.)
We DO know IOWA (and SD) and Many others/esp plains states are quite happy with cost and efficiency, and are approaching or over 50%.. and SAVING money doing so.

So you've LOST on every combative Lie/fallacy you've tried.
(A persistent liar who tries to bully your way thru)
You are not smart enough to debate me: not close.
Start with some reading/links, then therapy for your MAGAt mind.

`
 
Last edited:
AI Overview

In the U.S., solar and wind power sources combined accounted for over 17% of electricity generation in 2024, surpassing coal for the first time. Wind energy alone contributed around 10% to U.S. electricity generation, while solar contributed a similar percentage.



I posted LCOE (Levelized cost) of solar a few times in the last few days. (see ie, my "Double the cost" thread and Lazard analysis)
Funny: I post LINKS for my claims, you fabricate yours.



How much more for what exactly?
IAC, a ridicKulous Demand Detail FALLACY/Strawman. (An impossible Nebulous BS challenge of time and degree.)
We DO know IOWA (and SD) and Many others/esp plains states are quite happy with cost and efficiency, and are approaching or over 50%.. and SAVING money doing so.

So you've LOST on every combative Lie/fallacy you've tried.
(A persistent liar who tries to bully your way thru)
You are not smart enough to debate me: not close.
Start with some reading/links, then therapy for your MAGAt mind.

`

I posted LCOE (Levelized cost) of solar a few times in the last few days.

Yeah, those BS numbers are hilarious!
 
AI Overview

In the U.S., solar and wind power sources combined accounted for over 17% of electricity generation in 2024, surpassing coal for the first time. Wind energy alone contributed around 10% to U.S. electricity generation, while solar contributed a similar percentage.



I posted LCOE (Levelized cost) of solar a few times in the last few days. (see ie, my "Double the cost" thread and Lazard analysis)
Funny: I post LINKS for my claims, you fabricate yours.



How much more for what exactly?
IAC, a ridicKulous Demand Detail FALLACY/Strawman. (An impossible Nebulous BS challenge of time and degree.)
We DO know IOWA (and SD) and Many others/esp plains states are quite happy with cost and efficiency, and are approaching or over 50%.. and SAVING money doing so.

So you've LOST on every combative Lie/fallacy you've tried.
(A persistent liar who tries to bully your way thru)
You are not smart enough to debate me: not close.
Start with some reading/links, then therapy for your MAGAt mind.

`
How much have we spent. It was a simple question abu refuses to answer

When the democrats tell us it is cheap but cant tell us how much it costs that is one sign of many that democrats are filthy liars
 
You are full of shit and a Liar.

1. My opinion [stated above] is that we can get to "50-80%, not "100%."

2. I then posted Exerpts from Vox And Wiki proposing how we could get to 100%. eventually.

3. Solar and Wind are Not "failured" they now generate 17% of our power.
Solar increased efficiency and cost 85-90% in the 2010-2020 decade and continue to improve. (see my Two thread starts on this near the top of this section: 2020/2024).
That's how we get both cost and cleaner advances.

`
hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha biggest failure of our lifetime.
 
How much have we spent. It was a simple question abu refuses to answer

When the democrats tell us it is cheap but cant tell us how much it costs that is one sign of many that democrats are filthy liars

It's super cheap. No charge for fuel.

That's why Germans pay triple what we do for electricity.
 
How much have we spent. It was a simple question abu refuses to answer

When the democrats tell us it is cheap but cant tell us how much it costs that is one sign of many that democrats are filthy liars
LOL You Dishonest False challenge/Strawman Clown.
Having LOST all other real points (ie 17%, LCOE, etc) it's back to another goofy ridicKulous try.
IAC and again, Red states IOWA, SD, even Texas, et al, keep spending more Because it's SAVING Money.
You're a factless/Link-less POS.
`
 
Last edited:
LOL You Dishonest False challenge/Strawman Clown.
Having LOST all other real points (ie 17%, LCOE, etc) it's back to another goofy ridicKulous try.
IAC and again, Red states IOWA, SD, even Texas, et al, keep spending more Because it's SAVING Money.
You're a factless/Link-less POS.
`

When the federal government is wasting stupid amounts of money on wind,
many stupid projects make sense, even if only temporarily.

You still can't show any place where this "cheaper" energy has actually reduced costs.
 
LOL You Dishonest False challenge/Strawman Clown.
Having LOST all other real points (ie 17%, LCOE, etc) it's back to another goofy ridicKulous try.
IAC and again, Red states IOWA, SD, even Texas, et al, keep spending more Because it's SAVING Money.
You're a factless/Link-less POS.
`
See that people, the guy clqiming wind and solar cheap cant tell us the cost of wind and solar

Iowa is going to nuclear power
You bring up iowa and how cheap wind and solar is. How much money has iowa spent building wind turbines?

How come you wont tell us how much it costs. How come you cant prove anything you say
 
See that people, the guy clqiming wind and solar cheap cant tell us the cost of wind and solar

Iowa is going to nuclear power
You bring up iowa and how cheap wind and solar is. How much money has iowa spent building wind turbines?

How come you wont tell us how much it costs. How come you cant prove anything you say
then he exposes his lie. Liars never tell the truth.
 
Red states IOWA, SD, even Texas, et al, keep spending more Because it's SAVING Money.
You make claims you cant support.

Iowa, South Dakota, and Texas. Are the spending money on wind turbines and solar panels? You just claimed the government is paying for solar and wind.

I agree, the government is paying for solar and wind.

Abu, the public is the government, states dont pay, people do.

Iowa is subsidizing wind turbines, the government is subsidizing wind turbines.

Abu I think is not lying, abu is just so fucking stupid abu dont understand that the profit is the subsidy.

End subsidies and there is no more green energy.

Abu, name one commercial scale solar or wind project that is not subsidized.

Abu wont answer any questions, abu only has the democrat dictated talking position.

How much did it all cost? Acc9rding to abu that question is diversion.

Is abu a liar or stupid. Sounds stupid to me considering Iowa must import electricity because after spending $50 billion dollars, Iowa can not produce the electricity it needs.
 
With all this free wine and solar electric, why isn't Iowa the cheapest? -


Does that mean the cheaper states have more windmills and panels 🤔

1000006467.webp


Wyoming as an example -

1000006469.webp
 
With all this free wine and solar electric, why isn't Iowa the cheapest? -


Does that mean the cheaper states have more windmills and panels 🤔

View attachment 1104112

Wyoming as an example -

View attachment 1104113

Washington, Oregon and Idaho all rely on hydro ... wind and solar augment supply ... and we try to be environmentally considerate, even in Idaho ... Grand Coulee Dam alone almost matches the entire output of Wyoming ...

Funny ... 10,192 MW will only generate 36,691,200 GW-hrs gross ... math is hard, especially for liberals ...
 
Back
Top Bottom