Solar Energy Was America's Sole New Power Source in October

[ScienceRocks]

Solar Energy Was America's Sole New Power Source in October

In October, power plants generating 530 megawatts of electricity came online in the United States. And every single electron put on the grid came from the sun, according to a report released today.

It’s possible to make too much of the fact that solar energy was the sole source of new electricity capacity in US that month. After all, the completion dates of power plants can be random. That’s particularly true for complex, multibillion-dollar, fossil fuel power stations that can take years to build and are subject to oversight by state regulators.

However, it is also possible to be too dismissive of this energy shift and the fact that solar supplanted coal and natural gas in October. It’s not a huge amount of power – at peak output 530 megawatts is what a medium-sized natural gas-fired power plant would generate. But it’s a clear sign that solar is no longer a niche play – especially when you consider that the October’s numbers don’t include the installation of roof photovoltaic panels on homes and businesses. In California alone, for instance, 19.5 megawatts of rooftop solar was installed in the territories of the state’s three big utilities just in October.

Solar Energy Was America's Sole New Power Source in October - Todd Woody - The Atlantic

 

[flacaltenn]

If that's the case... Then grid generation capabilities DID NOT EXPAND in October. Since adding ANY amount of solar does not by itself expand generation capacity..

Can't do that with a 6 hour/day power source...

 

[daveman]

Am I supposed to be excited about a power source with a nameplate capacity of less than 10% of the Grand Coulee Dam -- which generates 24/7/365 -- that can only generate a few hours a day in good weather?

Yawn.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is no place in our nation that we can build a new Grand Coulee. But we have many thousands of square miles of residential and commercial roofs that solar can be installed on. At a profit to the business or the home owner.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There is no place in our nation that we can build a new Grand Coulee. But we have many thousands of square miles of residential and commercial roofs that solar can be installed on. At a profit to the business or the home owner.

Solar is endless and for billions of years Buy solar = get decades of energy. No one has to dig a hole or pump shit out of the ground with solar. Just clean and reliable energy!

Coal
Oil
Natural gas

are all set and slowly running out. Solar, wind, wave and geo-thermal is dependable!

 

[daveman]

There is no place in our nation that we can build a new Grand Coulee. But we have many thousands of square miles of residential and commercial roofs that solar can be installed on. At a profit to the business or the home owner.

...sure, as long as it's heavily subsided by taxpayers.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no place in our nation that we can build a new Grand Coulee. But we have many thousands of square miles of residential and commercial roofs that solar can be installed on. At a profit to the business or the home owner.

Solar is endless and for billions of years Buy solar = get decades of energy. No one has to dig a hole or pump shit out of the ground with solar. Just clean and reliable energy!

For 6 hours a day? When it doesnt rain or snow? if you live below lattitude 40? Until your roof needs replacing?

Where in your fantasy does an unreliable six hour a day spplemental energy source become an alternative to sustain a modern society?

Coal
Oil
Natural gas

are all set and slowly running out. Solar, wind, wave and geo-thermal is dependable!

THats sad... Youre so fond of science and technology, but so void of the ability to evaluate the perils of worst case engineering design.

 

[RGR]

There is no place in our nation that we can build a new Grand Coulee. But we have many thousands of square miles of residential and commercial roofs that solar can be installed on. At a profit to the business or the home owner.

Solar is endless and for billions of years Buy solar = get decades of energy. No one has to dig a hole or pump shit out of the ground with solar. Just clean and reliable energy!

You do realize that solar mostly works during the day, right? Which means…it isn't particularly reliable, 24/7. Fortunately we can frack and make natural gas in copious amounts all over the place, and use that to generate electricity when the sun isn't up.

Coal
Oil
Natural gas

are all set and slowly running out. Solar, wind, wave and geo-thermal is dependable!

Dependability is good!! Fortunately we have mucho coal, oil and natural gas to make sure it properly gets off the ground over the next, oh, half century or so?

 

[flacaltenn]

If you push solar beyond a 10 or 15% midday peaker thru mandates and edicts------ Then your next mandate will be to FORCE investment into backbone nat gas and other primary generators.. Because capital and investers are not gonna build fossil plants that idle with full staff and maintenance costs waiting for the next cloud to pass or the rain to start.

End result is a lot of dictates and subsidies and duplication of generation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar and wind will become the major players as we get grid scale batteries in play.

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar and wind will become the major players as we get grid scale batteries in play.

What a deal that will be. Cali needs 12 of those right now. Just for the sketchy wind and solar they already have. Adding that 20 billion to the cost of renewables is a f ing bargain aint it? Oh and those batterry barns will need replacement every 15 years or so. Yippy.. that ll fix it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Like the finite resources of coal, natural gas and oil will last forever...lol.

Briton, Canada, and much of mainland Europe has reach peak in one if not all of the above. Eastern United states coal mines are dying as we speak and only the western ones keep this nation afloat. Just goes to show you that none of this is forever.

Only fracking has allowed for natural gas to become number one. How long. Who knows.

The reality of it might force us to go to nuclear, solar, wind and wave. Conservatives on that day will be in for a rude awaking.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And before you think I am some kind of left wing nuts...I would love to see 100+ gw of nuclear come online over the next few decades.

For the left to oppose this so strongly across the board is hurting our ability to move away from co2 polluting fuels. Even James Hansen would agree with me on this.

Build it out over the fucking desert if you're so scared.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd like to copy the French model of 50%+ nuclear for our baseload and 30% for wind, solar and wave.

Just don't build it over a subduction fault

 

[Mr. H.]

The EIA states that hydrocarbons will remain the predominant world energy source for decades to come. And hydrocarbons are much more than just fuel. They are the base feedstock for materials that can not be manufactured from the sun or the wind.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The EIA states that hydrocarbons will remain the predominant world energy source for decades to come. And hydrocarbons are much more than just fuel. They are the base feedstock for materials that can not be manufactured from the sun or the wind.

Maybe we should think about saving some for those materials???? I am kind of hoping humanity will be around tens of thousands of generations

The last time I checked we'd have to go all the way to Titan to find more.

 

[elektra]

The EIA states that hydrocarbons will remain the predominant world energy source for decades to come. And hydrocarbons are much more than just fuel. They are the base feedstock for materials that can not be manufactured from the sun or the wind.

Maybe we should think about saving some for those materials???? I am kind of hoping humanity will be around tens of thousands of generations

The last time I checked we'd have to go all the way to Titan to find more.

Yes save "those materials", yet the solution you propose, advocate, Green Energy uses "those materials" at a higher rate, Green Energy takes the worlds largest amount of Hydrocarbons to produce a fraction of the energy than if you produced energy directly from Hydrocarbons.

That is the irony, Green Energy is the opposite of Green, Green Energy consumes natural resources such as oil at a higher rate, Green Energy increases demand for oil and oil by-products.

So the consumer not only subsidizes Green Energy but also must compete with Green Energy for a dwindling percentage of Earths Natural Resources.

 

[flacaltenn]

The EIA states that hydrocarbons will remain the predominant world energy source for decades to come. And hydrocarbons are much more than just fuel. They are the base feedstock for materials that can not be manufactured from the sun or the wind.

Maybe we should think about saving some for those materials???? I am kind of hoping humanity will be around tens of thousands of generations

The last time I checked we'd have to go all the way to Titan to find more.

Yes save "those materials", yet the solution you propose, advocate, Green Energy uses "those materials" at a higher rate, Green Energy takes the worlds largest amount of Hydrocarbons to produce a fraction of the energy than if you produced energy directly from Hydrocarbons.

That is the irony, Green Energy is the opposite of Green, Green Energy consumes natural resources such as oil at a higher rate, Green Energy increases demand for oil and oil by-products.

So the consumer not only subsidizes Green Energy but also must compete with Green Energy for a dwindling percentage of Earths Natural Resources.

This is especially true when you reach more than 10% or so of flaky renewables on the grid. At that point -- LARGE new costs come in.. Not only in dollars, but to the environment. Places like California and Germany have already been forced to build out football field size battery barns.. Not big enough to STORE that unreliable production from wind and solar -- but just to guarantee the STABILITY of the grid during frantic switching to balance loads. THOUSANDS of tons of batteries to manufacture, recycle, and replace reguarly.. Those costs have YET to be added into all this "free energy"..

 

[Old Rocks]

The EIA states that hydrocarbons will remain the predominant world energy source for decades to come. And hydrocarbons are much more than just fuel. They are the base feedstock for materials that can not be manufactured from the sun or the wind.

Maybe we should think about saving some for those materials???? I am kind of hoping humanity will be around tens of thousands of generations

The last time I checked we'd have to go all the way to Titan to find more.

Yes save "those materials", yet the solution you propose, advocate, Green Energy uses "those materials" at a higher rate, Green Energy takes the worlds largest amount of Hydrocarbons to produce a fraction of the energy than if you produced energy directly from Hydrocarbons.

That is the irony, Green Energy is the opposite of Green, Green Energy consumes natural resources such as oil at a higher rate, Green Energy increases demand for oil and oil by-products.

So the consumer not only subsidizes Green Energy but also must compete with Green Energy for a dwindling percentage of Earths Natural Resources.

Really? A lot of statements here that defy logic. So, back up your statements with some links. Otherwise, just pulling stupid shit out of your ass.

 

[Old Rocks]

Maybe we should think about saving some for those materials???? I am kind of hoping humanity will be around tens of thousands of generations

The last time I checked we'd have to go all the way to Titan to find more.

Yes save "those materials", yet the solution you propose, advocate, Green Energy uses "those materials" at a higher rate, Green Energy takes the worlds largest amount of Hydrocarbons to produce a fraction of the energy than if you produced energy directly from Hydrocarbons.

That is the irony, Green Energy is the opposite of Green, Green Energy consumes natural resources such as oil at a higher rate, Green Energy increases demand for oil and oil by-products.

So the consumer not only subsidizes Green Energy but also must compete with Green Energy for a dwindling percentage of Earths Natural Resources.

This is especially true when you reach more than 10% or so of flaky renewables on the grid. At that point -- LARGE new costs come in.. Not only in dollars, but to the environment. Places like California and Germany have already been forced to build out football field size battery barns.. Not big enough to STORE that unreliable production from wind and solar -- but just to guarantee the STABILITY of the grid during frantic switching to balance loads. THOUSANDS of tons of batteries to manufacture, recycle, and replace reguarly.. Those costs have YET to be added into all this "free energy"..

Versus millions of tons of fly ash that is poisoness and somehow ends up in our rivers. Flat, you are one dumb bastard. Posting foolishness like this that can be demolished by a third grader.