When you're still paying for the nat gas plant or the nuke plant, running at lower output, how much is the real cost of the wind or solar?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Solar Energy
- Thread starter Pythagoras
- Start date
When you're still paying for the nat gas plant or the nuke plant, running at lower output, how much is the real cost of the wind or solar?
Tesla built a huge solar energy plant on the island of Kauai - The VergeWhich island is that?? ...There is already an Island fully operating on solar power.
Also Farasan Island is all solar.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The findings show that retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities. About 44 percent of that coal power is substantially at-risk, that is it could be replaced by renewables that are at least 25 percent cheaper.Mar 25, 2019Would you support small amounts of solar generation in Chicago?
If individuals want to overpay to install less reliable energy, they should be allowed.
Running street lights or even parts of the railway?
No. Silly idea in Chicago.
No one really talks about small things like that even though they have a cost and can make a nice change to the budget of cities.
It would increase costs and only benefit those connected to political insiders.
Cost is a major factor in any energy generation. So what is the relative cost of generation;
View attachment 443734
When you're still paying for the nat gas plant or the nuke plant, running at lower output, how much is the real cost of the wind or solar?
Shutting Down Almost Every Coal Plant and Swapping For Renewables Would Save Money, Report Finds
Coal is dying in the U.S. Perhaps you’ve heard the reports. But even those reports don’t seem to capture how much of a dead man walking the dirtiest fossil fuel is.
earther.gizmodo.com
And nuclear is next, then natural gas.
The findings show that retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities. About 44 percent of that coal power is substantially at-risk, that is it could be replaced by renewables that are at least 25 percent cheaper.Mar 25, 2019Would you support small amounts of solar generation in Chicago?
If individuals want to overpay to install less reliable energy, they should be allowed.
Running street lights or even parts of the railway?
No. Silly idea in Chicago.
No one really talks about small things like that even though they have a cost and can make a nice change to the budget of cities.
It would increase costs and only benefit those connected to political insiders.
Cost is a major factor in any energy generation. So what is the relative cost of generation;
View attachment 443734
When you're still paying for the nat gas plant or the nuke plant, running at lower output, how much is the real cost of the wind or solar?
.Shutting Down Almost Every Coal Plant and Swapping For Renewables Would Save Money, Report Finds
Coal is dying in the U.S. Perhaps you’ve heard the reports. But even those reports don’t seem to capture how much of a dead man walking the dirtiest fossil fuel is.
And nuclear is next, then natural gas.
Our coal fired power plants are all real old.. Where would you get investors to put up new coal plants? Doesn't make sense to me.
Saudi Crown Prince launches zero-carbon city in NEOM business zone
Saudi Arabia's crown prince unveiled plans on Sunday to build a zero-carbon city at NEOM, the first major construction project for the $500 billion flagship business zone aimed at diversifying the economy of the world's largest oil exporter.
www.reuters.com
The findings show that retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities. About 44 percent of that coal power is substantially at-risk, that is it could be replaced by renewables that are at least 25 percent cheaper.Mar 25, 2019Would you support small amounts of solar generation in Chicago?
If individuals want to overpay to install less reliable energy, they should be allowed.
Running street lights or even parts of the railway?
No. Silly idea in Chicago.
No one really talks about small things like that even though they have a cost and can make a nice change to the budget of cities.
It would increase costs and only benefit those connected to political insiders.
Cost is a major factor in any energy generation. So what is the relative cost of generation;
View attachment 443734
When you're still paying for the nat gas plant or the nuke plant, running at lower output, how much is the real cost of the wind or solar?
.Shutting Down Almost Every Coal Plant and Swapping For Renewables Would Save Money, Report Finds
Coal is dying in the U.S. Perhaps you’ve heard the reports. But even those reports don’t seem to capture how much of a dead man walking the dirtiest fossil fuel is.
And nuclear is next, then natural gas.
retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities.
Retiring a fully amortized plant and replacing it with an expensive new plant with intermittent output would provide "an immediate saving to utilities"?
That's funny.
Is that why power is so cheap in California? Because of all their cheap wind and solar?
Pythagoras
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #47
That's awesome. I did not know that.Tesla built a huge solar energy plant on the island of Kauai - The VergeWhich island is that?? ...There is already an Island fully operating on solar power.
Also Farasan Island is all solar.
Turtlesoup
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2020
- 15,903
- 16,731
- 2,288
it s become efficient BUT it still isn't efficient enough.Due to the advances in batteries/power cells/ gen. energy storage solar power has become more efficient. There is already an Island fully operating on solar power. Does Solar energy show promise in keeping cities operational? What other useful applications can solar power bring to the table? Is it cost-effective? Many companies have their own ideas like solar-powered planes and cars. Does solar transportation seem like a good idea?
LUNA RING, Solar Power Generation on the Moon | Topics | Shimizu Corporation (shimz.co.jp)
Is this idea too outrageous? Would something like this be beneficial in the long run? Would you ever support something like this? Are there any other theories you have seen or came up with that utilize solar energy?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
When you have as high a demand for energy as California does, the grid to serve that demand is rather expensive. When you are shipping wind and hydro power from two states away, you are paying for a lot of transmission loss. Even with the huge DC line going to San Diego.The findings show that retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities. About 44 percent of that coal power is substantially at-risk, that is it could be replaced by renewables that are at least 25 percent cheaper.Mar 25, 2019Would you support small amounts of solar generation in Chicago?
If individuals want to overpay to install less reliable energy, they should be allowed.
Running street lights or even parts of the railway?
No. Silly idea in Chicago.
No one really talks about small things like that even though they have a cost and can make a nice change to the budget of cities.
It would increase costs and only benefit those connected to political insiders.
Cost is a major factor in any energy generation. So what is the relative cost of generation;
View attachment 443734
When you're still paying for the nat gas plant or the nuke plant, running at lower output, how much is the real cost of the wind or solar?
.Shutting Down Almost Every Coal Plant and Swapping For Renewables Would Save Money, Report Finds
Coal is dying in the U.S. Perhaps you’ve heard the reports. But even those reports don’t seem to capture how much of a dead man walking the dirtiest fossil fuel is.
And nuclear is next, then natural gas.
retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities.
Retiring a fully amortized plant and replacing it with an expensive new plant with intermittent output would provide "an immediate saving to utilities"?
That's funny.
Is that why power is so cheap in California? Because of all their cheap wind and solar?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Compared to what? Imported diesel, oil, or coal? There are now several ways of storing electrical energy. And solar is getting less costly with every year. As is wind. In the meantime, natural gas and nuclear are ever more costly. You don't need uranium, waste storage, pipeline, nor fracking for solar and wind.it s become efficient BUT it still isn't efficient enough.Due to the advances in batteries/power cells/ gen. energy storage solar power has become more efficient. There is already an Island fully operating on solar power. Does Solar energy show promise in keeping cities operational? What other useful applications can solar power bring to the table? Is it cost-effective? Many companies have their own ideas like solar-powered planes and cars. Does solar transportation seem like a good idea?
LUNA RING, Solar Power Generation on the Moon | Topics | Shimizu Corporation (shimz.co.jp)
Is this idea too outrageous? Would something like this be beneficial in the long run? Would you ever support something like this? Are there any other theories you have seen or came up with that utilize solar energy?
When you have as high a demand for energy as California does, the grid to serve that demand is rather expensive. When you are shipping wind and hydro power from two states away, you are paying for a lot of transmission loss. Even with the huge DC line going to San Diego.The findings show that retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities. About 44 percent of that coal power is substantially at-risk, that is it could be replaced by renewables that are at least 25 percent cheaper.Mar 25, 2019Would you support small amounts of solar generation in Chicago?
If individuals want to overpay to install less reliable energy, they should be allowed.
Running street lights or even parts of the railway?
No. Silly idea in Chicago.
No one really talks about small things like that even though they have a cost and can make a nice change to the budget of cities.
It would increase costs and only benefit those connected to political insiders.
Cost is a major factor in any energy generation. So what is the relative cost of generation;
View attachment 443734
When you're still paying for the nat gas plant or the nuke plant, running at lower output, how much is the real cost of the wind or solar?
.Shutting Down Almost Every Coal Plant and Swapping For Renewables Would Save Money, Report Finds
Coal is dying in the U.S. Perhaps you’ve heard the reports. But even those reports don’t seem to capture how much of a dead man walking the dirtiest fossil fuel is.
And nuclear is next, then natural gas.
retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities.
Retiring a fully amortized plant and replacing it with an expensive new plant with intermittent output would provide "an immediate saving to utilities"?
That's funny.
Is that why power is so cheap in California? Because of all their cheap wind and solar?
When you have as high a demand for energy as California does, the grid to serve that demand is rather expensive.
I guess, in that case, removing reliable, cheap power generation and adding unreliable, more expensive generation makes even less sense than in a lower demand state.
You don't need uranium, waste storage, pipeline, nor fracking for solar and wind.
You do.....if you don't want the grid to crash every time a cloud blocks the Sun or the wind slows.
I have found solar power to be of great benefit under the right circumstances.
It works best when you have lots of sunlight. So it's a good substitute for "the grid" if you live in a trailer and migrate according to the seasons. Best if kyour trailer flies or floats as there aren't many alternatives to crossing the equator in "our" hemisphere.
It can work very well for a fixed dwelling if you have sufficient roof area and/or open land to festoon with solar cells. But also requires a lot of storage. The need for that can be reduced if you're willing to reduce your demand. Switching to LEDs for lighting can help but more effective would be turning off your TV and computer. If you're unwilling to do your part to achieve independence then you'll need a lot of storage. Batteries are good if you can build an addition big enough. Or.....
Try pumped storage. fill your attic and basement with plastic tanks. Fill the basement tank with water and use a solar powered pump to move the water up to the attic when the sun shines. When it sets let the water trickle down through a small generator. Then to to bed when the attic tank is empty and the sun's not up.
Oh, don't bother to strengthen the walls or the attic floor. Yes, it will collapse but that'll end the misery you've been living through. No worry about you're being "out" at the time of the collapse; remember, you're doing your part by cowering indoors.
Now don't you feel ever so GOOD????
It works best when you have lots of sunlight. So it's a good substitute for "the grid" if you live in a trailer and migrate according to the seasons. Best if kyour trailer flies or floats as there aren't many alternatives to crossing the equator in "our" hemisphere.
It can work very well for a fixed dwelling if you have sufficient roof area and/or open land to festoon with solar cells. But also requires a lot of storage. The need for that can be reduced if you're willing to reduce your demand. Switching to LEDs for lighting can help but more effective would be turning off your TV and computer. If you're unwilling to do your part to achieve independence then you'll need a lot of storage. Batteries are good if you can build an addition big enough. Or.....
Try pumped storage. fill your attic and basement with plastic tanks. Fill the basement tank with water and use a solar powered pump to move the water up to the attic when the sun shines. When it sets let the water trickle down through a small generator. Then to to bed when the attic tank is empty and the sun's not up.
Oh, don't bother to strengthen the walls or the attic floor. Yes, it will collapse but that'll end the misery you've been living through. No worry about you're being "out" at the time of the collapse; remember, you're doing your part by cowering indoors.
Now don't you feel ever so GOOD????
Compared to what? Imported diesel, oil, or coal? There are now several ways of storing electrical energy. And solar is getting less costly with every year. As is wind. In the meantime, natural gas and nuclear are ever more costly. You don't need uranium, waste storage, pipeline, nor fracking for solar and wind.it s become efficient BUT it still isn't efficient enough.Due to the advances in batteries/power cells/ gen. energy storage solar power has become more efficient. There is already an Island fully operating on solar power. Does Solar energy show promise in keeping cities operational? What other useful applications can solar power bring to the table? Is it cost-effective? Many companies have their own ideas like solar-powered planes and cars. Does solar transportation seem like a good idea?
LUNA RING, Solar Power Generation on the Moon | Topics | Shimizu Corporation (shimz.co.jp)
Is this idea too outrageous? Would something like this be beneficial in the long run? Would you ever support something like this? Are there any other theories you have seen or came up with that utilize solar energy?
In the meantime, natural gas and nuclear are ever more costly.
By "ever more costly" did you mean that natural gas is cheaper than it was in 1982?
Or that uranium is less than half the price it was 10 years ago?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Lordy, lordy, give the man an award for stupidity. For homes, there are many manufacturers of home batteries, including Tesla. For grid level storage, Tesla and others build megawatt battery plant, pumped water storage, liquid air, and gravity.I have found solar power to be of great benefit under the right circumstances.
It works best when you have lots of sunlight. So it's a good substitute for "the grid" if you live in a trailer and migrate according to the seasons. Best if kyour trailer flies or floats as there aren't many alternatives to crossing the equator in "our" hemisphere.
It can work very well for a fixed dwelling if you have sufficient roof area and/or open land to festoon with solar cells. But also requires a lot of storage. The need for that can be reduced if you're willing to reduce your demand. Switching to LEDs for lighting can help but more effective would be turning off your TV and computer. If you're unwilling to do your part to achieve independence then you'll need a lot of storage. Batteries are good if you can build an addition big enough. Or.....
Try pumped storage. fill your attic and basement with plastic tanks. Fill the basement tank with water and use a solar powered pump to move the water up to the attic when the sun shines. When it sets let the water trickle down through a small generator. Then to to bed when the attic tank is empty and the sun's not up.
Oh, don't bother to strengthen the walls or the attic floor. Yes, it will collapse but that'll end the misery you've been living through. No worry about you're being "out" at the time of the collapse; remember, you're doing your part by cowering indoors.
Now don't you feel ever so GOOD????
Pythagoras
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #56
Solar panels work off of solar radiation, not just a sunny day...You don't need uranium, waste storage, pipeline, nor fracking for solar and wind.
You do.....if you don't want the grid to crash every time a cloud blocks the Sun or the wind slows.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Kind of ignoring the costs of installing pipelines and cleaning up after pipeline explosions, aren't you? And then there is the problem of what to do with all that hot nuclear waste. And there is a reason that no insurance company will even consider insuring a nuke plant.Compared to what? Imported diesel, oil, or coal? There are now several ways of storing electrical energy. And solar is getting less costly with every year. As is wind. In the meantime, natural gas and nuclear are ever more costly. You don't need uranium, waste storage, pipeline, nor fracking for solar and wind.it s become efficient BUT it still isn't efficient enough.Due to the advances in batteries/power cells/ gen. energy storage solar power has become more efficient. There is already an Island fully operating on solar power. Does Solar energy show promise in keeping cities operational? What other useful applications can solar power bring to the table? Is it cost-effective? Many companies have their own ideas like solar-powered planes and cars. Does solar transportation seem like a good idea?
LUNA RING, Solar Power Generation on the Moon | Topics | Shimizu Corporation (shimz.co.jp)
Is this idea too outrageous? Would something like this be beneficial in the long run? Would you ever support something like this? Are there any other theories you have seen or came up with that utilize solar energy?
In the meantime, natural gas and nuclear are ever more costly.
View attachment 443917
By "ever more costly" did you mean that natural gas is cheaper than it was in 1982?
View attachment 443920
Or that uranium is less than half the price it was 10 years ago?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
And that is exactly why most of the new generation coming online is renewable.When you have as high a demand for energy as California does, the grid to serve that demand is rather expensive. When you are shipping wind and hydro power from two states away, you are paying for a lot of transmission loss. Even with the huge DC line going to San Diego.The findings show that retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities. About 44 percent of that coal power is substantially at-risk, that is it could be replaced by renewables that are at least 25 percent cheaper.Mar 25, 2019Would you support small amounts of solar generation in Chicago?
If individuals want to overpay to install less reliable energy, they should be allowed.
Running street lights or even parts of the railway?
No. Silly idea in Chicago.
No one really talks about small things like that even though they have a cost and can make a nice change to the budget of cities.
It would increase costs and only benefit those connected to political insiders.
Cost is a major factor in any energy generation. So what is the relative cost of generation;
View attachment 443734
When you're still paying for the nat gas plant or the nuke plant, running at lower output, how much is the real cost of the wind or solar?
.Shutting Down Almost Every Coal Plant and Swapping For Renewables Would Save Money, Report Finds
Coal is dying in the U.S. Perhaps you’ve heard the reports. But even those reports don’t seem to capture how much of a dead man walking the dirtiest fossil fuel is.
And nuclear is next, then natural gas.
retiring 74 percent of American coal power plants and replacing them with wind or solar plants would provide an immediate saving to utilities.
Retiring a fully amortized plant and replacing it with an expensive new plant with intermittent output would provide "an immediate saving to utilities"?
That's funny.
Is that why power is so cheap in California? Because of all their cheap wind and solar?
When you have as high a demand for energy as California does, the grid to serve that demand is rather expensive.
I guess, in that case, removing reliable, cheap power generation and adding unreliable, more expensive generation makes even less sense than in a lower demand state.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Of course this is the kind of nonsense one would expect from you. This is one solution;You don't need uranium, waste storage, pipeline, nor fracking for solar and wind.
You do.....if you don't want the grid to crash every time a cloud blocks the Sun or the wind slows.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
And another solution;You don't need uranium, waste storage, pipeline, nor fracking for solar and wind.
You do.....if you don't want the grid to crash every time a cloud blocks the Sun or the wind slows.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 537
- Replies
- 233
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 79
- Views
- 411
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 121
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-