Climate Change

[skaredshtles]

You are wrong. If wind power isn't efficient we will have to build so many turbines that eventually we will stop the wind. Since wind is what makes weather, that will stop the weather. And then we will really be fucked.

Can you imagine the effect on Wyoming??

[xyz]

You are wrong. If wind power isn't efficient we will have to build so many turbines that eventually we will stop the wind. Since wind is what makes weather, that will stop the weather. And then we will really be fucked.

Good point. A wind farm for all backcountry areas. No wind slab!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[BCMtnHound]

Can you imagine the effect on Wyoming??

All the cattle would fall over?

[SumJongGuy]

Remember how all those hydro plants stropped rivers from flowing and defeated gravity?


Too many wind turbines will stop the earth from rotating. Our days are already getting longer amirite??

[xyz]

Wow, so much wrong here.

Why is efficiency an important metric for wind turbines? What fuel is being wasted when wind is not converted to electricity? What waste byproduct (pollution) is created when wind isn't converted to electricity?

Efficiency does matter when you are burning fuels for electricity, or using uranium. So efficiency matters for fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Yes, when renewables get more efficient we'll need fewer of them, but there is no cost to "wasted" wind or sun.

Nuclear is expensive and slow to build. In the amount of time and money it takes to build one nuke plant we could build a lot of low cost wind and solar - even batteries. Land footprint of nuclear is actually much larger than just the power plant as there are secure perimeters around a site that are off limits to other uses and there and fuel supply chain land needs too. Nuclear also can't meet our peak power needs as it is difficult to ramp up and down quickly , so it is good for base load put not peaking. Batteries are great for peak power needs.

Wind gets mentioned as using lots of land, and it is true wind farms take up a lot of area. But the unusable land of a wind farm is minuscule, mostly just the tower bases. The rest of the land can still be used for whatever. In the west many fields use circular irrigation, leaving 4 corners unused. Those are ideal places to put wind turbines without affecting anything other than the farmer's pocketbook as lease payments could dramatically increase their incomes.

Outside of the noise, unrecycleable waste and footprint of wind and solar, their problems are obvious, they are intermittent. No wind, no sun, no power. Yes of course batteries can store but they aren’t scalable to provide consistent power for peak demands. Plus battery mining practices are mostly child labor in the Congo.

Wind and solar will always need backup power. Either coal, gas or nuclear. So why bother. Just go full nuclear. It has the highest capacity factor. Like 4x wind and solar. Wind and solar are site specific. You can’t put them everywhere. Theoretically, a nuclear plant can go anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Cisco Kid]

What I'm hearing expressed here has been said before. Just different words.

THE GASOLINE POWERED TRACTOR WILL NEVER TAKE THE PLACE OF THE FARM HORSE!!!

[WMD]

You are wrong. If wind power isn't efficient we will have to build so many turbines that eventually we will stop the wind. Since wind is what makes weather, that will stop the weather. And then we will really be fucked.

But if we stop weather, when will it stop? What day and time? Could that mean it will be 70 degrees and sunny forever? That sounds kind of nice.

[WMD]

Outside of the noise, unrecycleable waste and footprint of wind and solar, their problems are obvious, they are intermittent. No wind, no sun, no power. Yes of course batteries can store but they aren’t scalable to provide consistent power for peak demands. Plus battery mining practices are mostly child labor in the Congo.

Wind and solar will always need backup power. Either coal, gas or nuclear. So why bother. Just go full nuclear. It has the highest capacity factor. Like 4x wind and solar. Wind and solar are site specific. You can’t put them everywhere. Theoretically, a nuclear plant can go anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Bwahahaha. Who did you say pays you to write this shit? Oh yeah, Exxon. I hope so because no rational person would spew this kind of bullshit of their own free will.

[romeo tango]

.... why bother. Just go full nuclear ....

we can follow Russia and dump the nuclear waste on the tundra with no containment

Perfect!

.

[xyz]

Bwahahaha. Who did you say pays you to write this shit? Oh yeah, Exxon. I hope so because no rational person would spew this kind of bullshit of their own free will.

Why would Exxon pay me to promote nuclear power?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[uglymoney]

Reminder that here in Iowa we are now powered by 64% wind, a new record. In 23 we finished at 62%.

One of the least sincere arguments fronted around here is that wind/solar takes land out of crop production. Which is true, but a tiny amount compared to ethanol, which consumes 57% of corn acreage here and zero percent of that goes to people food (a small amount of byproduct is used to feed livestock). It is burned for energy. Depending on the source wind/solar produces 40 to 60 times the btu's per acre as ethanol. You can still grow food crops under windmills.

Some of these energy experts should try living next to an ethanol plant, powered by coal. Grain trucks arriving day and night belching diesel fumes. Coal trains dropping their toxic cargo, burning the coal to cook the corn belching mercury into the atmosphere and creating toxic coal ash. Legacy aquifers sucked dry to provide the water needed to boil the corn. Smoke belching from smoke stacks. Topsoil hemorrhaging from the bare land with every rainstorm. Not to mention the corn ethanol fields full of plants emitting massive amounts of pollen and water vapor which makes the area unliveable if you have allergies and miserable during the heat of summer...all to produces a fractional amount of energy, at best, which is carried away in yet more train cars. Depending on how you count the inputs it is more likely a net energy loss.

Yet, crickets.

But those evil windmills!






Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[old goat]

For system wide power storage for low solar and wind periods expect to see alternatives to batteries as time goes on--things like pumping water uphill or hydrogen created from water with solar power.

[xyz]

For system wide power storage for low solar and wind periods expect to see alternatives to batteries as time goes on--things like pumping water uphill or hydrogen created from water with solar power.

Technically possible? Yes. Realistic no.

This ideological fantasy thinking and death grip on wind and solar is holding us back. Go nuclear.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SumJongGuy]

do better.. that is all

[skaredshtles]

I sure am glad that numbnuts isn't in charge.

[grskier]

Outside of the noise, unrecycleable waste and footprint of wind and solar, their problems are obvious, they are intermittent. No wind, no sun, no power. Yes of course batteries can store but they aren’t scalable to provide consistent power for peak demands. Plus battery mining practices are mostly child labor in the Congo.

Wind and solar will always need backup power. Either coal, gas or nuclear. So why bother. Just go full nuclear. It has the highest capacity factor. Like 4x wind and solar. Wind and solar are site specific. You can’t put them everywhere. Theoretically, a nuclear plant can go anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Not going to say the portfolio shouldn't have nuclear, but the rest of what you wrote isn't quite up to snuff.

So,

You will see a number of different storage technologies and scales of those come to market in the next 5 or so years.

XCEL is looking at a 70 MW solar project in Colorado that will have an iron air battery.

There are companies looking at stored energy in concrete

Where space isn't a factor you'll see sodium ion batteries similar to lithium ion batteries, just need more space as it's lower on the periodic table

The potential stored stuff like water and weights are intriguing in some circles, but you need a lot of cheap real estate at the right elevations... AND have 'extra' energy at some point.

[WMD]

Technically possible? Yes. Realistic no.

This ideological fantasy thinking and death grip on nuclear is holding us back. Go with already developed and available renewables and storage today.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

FIFY

[xyz]

FIFY

You are right, if you ignore the science, engineering, economics and human rights.

[WMD]

You are right, if you ignore the science, engineering, economics and human rights.

LOL!

[old goat]

The energy xyz has put into this thread could have powered 20 homes.

[Buster Highmen]

I'm all for child labor.

It gives those ungrateful wretches something to do and keeps them off my lawn.

[neufox47]

Technically possible? Yes. Realistic no.

This ideological fantasy thinking and death grip on wind and solar is holding us back. Go nuclear.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Nuclear is vastly more expensive than virtually all renewables. The cheapest power produced is solar and wind.

According to many of the grid operators in TX batteries helped prevent brown puts this summer during the record heat.

And regarding the stupid mining tropes, grid scale batteries are probably not going to be lithium ion. Lithium iron batteries at the consumer scale, are now as cheap as $300 for 1 kWh and can be discharged about 3,000 times or $.10 per kWh. And this is at the consumer retail price.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bat...power%20demand.

[neufox47]

Also, October 23 was “only” .93 C above the 1990-2020 average…. Amazing all the deniers out there claiming this increase has NOTHING to do with green house gases [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[xyz]

Nuclear is vastly more expensive than virtually all renewables. The cheapest power produced is solar and wind.

According to many of the grid operators in TX batteries helped prevent brown puts this summer during the record heat.

And regarding the stupid mining tropes, grid scale batteries are probably not going to be lithium ion. Lithium iron batteries at the consumer scale, are now as cheap as $300 for 1 kWh and can be discharged about 3,000 times or $.10 per kWh. And this is at the consumer retail price.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bat...power%20demand.

Ok ok. I surrender. We need to fully transition to 100% wind and solar with 100% battery backup. It’s so cheap, almost free energy. Nothing else comes close. It’s totally possible from an engineering and cost perspective. It’s the best and only option.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PB]

Weak sarcasm is weak.