Texas Has Enough Sun and Wind To Quit Coal, Rice Researchers Say (houstonchronicle.com) 280
According to new research from Rice University, Texas has enough natural patterns of wind and sun to operate without coal. "Scientists found that between wind energy from West Texas and the Gulf Coast, and solar energy across the state, Texas could meet a significant portion of its electricity demand from renewable power without extensive battery storage," reports Houston Chronicle. "The reason: These sources generate power at different times of day, meaning that coordinating them could replace production from coal-fired plants." From the report: Texas is the largest producer of wind energy in the United States, generating about 18 percent of its electricity from wind. Most of the state's wind turbines are located in West Texas, where the wind blows the strongest at night and in the early spring, when demand is low. The resource, however, can be complemented by turbines on the Gulf Coast, where wind produces the most electricity on late afternoons in the summer, when power demand is the highest. Solar energy, a small, but rapidly growing segment of the state's energy mix, also has the advantage of generating power when it is needed most -- hot, sunny summer afternoons.
In the summer, Gulf Coast wind generation could overtake West Texas wind capacity from about 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. when sea breezes kick in, Rice research showed. From about 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., solar power average capacity also could exceed wind generation in West Texas, which increases as evening turns to night. In the winter, winds in West Texas strengthen and generation increases, dropping off about 9 a.m., when solar energy begins to ramp up. "It's all a matter of timing," said Dan Woodfin, senior director of system operations at the state's grid manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Weather, however, remains unpredictable. Texas would still need battery storage and natural gas-fired power plants to fill in gaps when, for example, winds might slacken earlier than expected.
In the summer, Gulf Coast wind generation could overtake West Texas wind capacity from about 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. when sea breezes kick in, Rice research showed. From about 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., solar power average capacity also could exceed wind generation in West Texas, which increases as evening turns to night. In the winter, winds in West Texas strengthen and generation increases, dropping off about 9 a.m., when solar energy begins to ramp up. "It's all a matter of timing," said Dan Woodfin, senior director of system operations at the state's grid manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Weather, however, remains unpredictable. Texas would still need battery storage and natural gas-fired power plants to fill in gaps when, for example, winds might slacken earlier than expected.
Testicular fortitude? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but do they have the balls?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Texas? Of course not, they are so scared of everything they think they need guns everywhere. A bunch of he-boys with no guts.
Re: (Score:3)
Those wind farms in Texas aren't there due to some rugged, individualistic, pull yourself up by your bootstraps get'er done Texan ethos. They are there because some Texas businessmen found a stream of money in the Federal budget. So perhaps they weren't exactly told how to generate power, but were sure encouraged by Federal dollars.
"Federal Alternative Energy Subsidies’ Expiration Date Causes ‘Wind Rush’ in Texas", https://www.texasstandard.org/... [texasstandard.org]
and from 2013, so a little dated:
"Texas
Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Be sure to factor in the hurricane variable (Score:4, Insightful)
As the Gulf Coast tends to see tropical systems of varying strength from time to time.
Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms and, if damaged, will need repair before resuming operation.
Same for transmission lines that would be carrying said energy across the State.
Cube power law is a bitch (Score:2, Informative)
> the Gulf Coast tends to see tropical systems of varying strength from time to time.
> Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms
Worse than that, the power of wind is proportional to the the velocity CUBED. That means wind turbines are great where you have steady, sustained wind.
Suppose you build a turbine to start generating power with a 10mph wind. Obviously that has implications for the design, how sturdy vs "lightweight" you make it, if you want the power of a 10mph breeze to both
Re:Cube power law is a bitch (Score:5, Funny)
If only someone could invent the idea of two modes of operation!
Humanity owes you a debt of gratitude for identifying this issue that no engineer ever thought of before.
Re:Cube power law is a bitch (Score:4, Insightful)
If only someone could invent the idea of two modes of operation!
I guess nobody has ever heard of variable pitch turbines or "prop feathering" (which works as well for wind turbines as it does for propellor driven aircraft).
Or Maximum Allowable Air Speed (Never Exceed) (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the airspeed indicator of a very popular plane, one I studied thoroughly, the Cessna 172:
https://fsxtimes.files.wordpre... [wordpress.com]
The stall speed (minimum speed Vni) of the 172 is listed at 48 or 53 (flaps up or down). The Vr, minimum speed for level flight, is 55.
The green arc, extending to 129, is the normal operating range. 129 is Vno, the Maximum structural cruising speed.
The yellow arc is speeds that must only be hit in smooth air, and with great caution. "Maximum structur cruising speed"" means this in this range, above 129, turbulence can break the aircraft apart.
So the airspeed at which the aircraft may break is 2 1/2 times it's minimum speed. Hurricanes are 150MPH - a heck of a lot more than 2.5 times the 10mph sea breeze! (Hurricanes are turbulent, btw).
The red line is the Velocity Never Exceed, Vne. At 158 structural failure of the aircraft is to be expected.
So you want to make an analogy to prop-driven planes? They are destroyed at three times their minimum operating airspeed.
If you want to stick to the prop plane analogy, that suggests that a turbine designed for 10MPH would have structural failure at 30MPH. Still like that analogy?
Btw I didn't create it, don't like it (Score:2)
By the way, I didn't create the cube power law. I don't even like it, hence the title "the cube power law is a bitch". It's a pain in the ass when designing planes because the cube power bitch tries to rip the control surfaces and wings off. It did rip the nose off of one of my prototypes. So don't blame me if you find the cube power law inconvenient. I didn't create it, or even like it, I just have to know it.
Re:Btw I didn't create it, don't like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Could wind turbines withstand Category 5 hurricanes" [quora.com]
This is one of many articles about wind turbines handling high winds. They actually have a "hurricane mode" into which they can be placed.
Article in NewScientist" [newscientist.com] on failure of wind turbine in the North Sea. And I quote:.
Much of the evidence was burned, and Infinis and Vestas disagree on which was the key initial cause of the destructive fire: Infinis believes it was the loss of yaw control, while Vestas thinks brake drag more the root cause. While Vestas has produced its own report, an expert was not available to discuss its findings with New Scientist. Vestas has since fixed the brake problem. In future, the feathered rotor will not have the brake applied in high winds; it will be free to turn if it needs to. “Vestas no longer do this and have modified all turbines at Ardrossan to prevent application of the parking brake, which is now only applied during maintenance,” says Infinis spokesman Andrew Dowler."
Guess what? The article also says: When wind speeds reach 88 km/h turbine blades of wind turbines are usually twisted, or “feathered”
I stand by my assertion. I will agree that airframes are susceptible to failure at airspeeds that are only modestly higher than normal operating airspeeds, however propellers (l.e. turbine blades) are much more robust - again, like propellers on aircraft.
For grins, I tried calculating tangential velocity of propeller tips on a Cessna 172, given a prop diameter of 76" and an RPM of 2800. My math may not be correct, but I've checked it in Excel and I think it works out to 622 MPH. By your reasoning, you wouldn't even make it off the runway before the propeller self-destructed.
Airframes and propellers have totally different strength characteristics, no?
Planes vs Windmills (Score:3)
Planes fly. Windmills do not.
So planes have to be built fairly lightly, but windmills can be much more solid. More like the propeller, which on a 172 is near supersonic at the tips.
The windmills simply feather their blades much like the variable pitch prop on the plane you move to after you have mastered the 172.
There are issues, mainly that the wind does not blow steadily from one direction.
For small wind systems, the tower itself is typically hinged so that it can be dropped in a storm. Probably not pr
They're actually long and skinny, like glider wing (Score:2)
> So planes have to be built fairly lightly, but windmills can be much more solid.
I don't know if you've ever seen a wind turbine, but the blades are actually long skinny things, much like the wings on a glider, and for the same reason. We call that "high aspect ratio" when we're designing airfoils, and the aspect ratio needs to be high for a reason. It makes a HUGE difference in efficiency. Wind turbine blades need to have a much higher aspect ratio than airplane wings.
Long skinny things get broken easi
Re: (Score:2)
"wind was never meant to be practical"
How do you know? Did you ask the inventor of wind?
"i like how todays policay's are feelings driven, no time for studies and all that real crap"
Indeed, just like your posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Quotes about actual cases of wind turbines getting destroyed by high winds, and then ...
> I stand by my assertion.
Based on the fact that wind turbines are in fact destroyed by high winds, you're going to assert that wind turbines can't be destroyed by high winds? Okay.
> For grins, I tried calculating tangential velocity of propeller tips and I think it works out to 622 MPH. By your reasoning, you wouldn't even make it off the runway before the propeller self-destructed.
Awesome. Did you calculate the
Re: (Score:2)
You are a moron.
Ratios of loads don't matter, only maximum loads do. If you build a device to withstand a maximum load it will not fail under no load because the load "ratio" is too great. It may fail, though, if the load exceeds what it is designed for. That's what engineering is, something you pretend to be knowledgeable in but demonstrate time and again that you are not.
Airplanes can be designed for a wider range of speeds than you think they are capable of...and often are. Not that it's relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
With the ignorance you display here, it seems unlikely that you are a structural engineer, aero engineer or an engineer of any sort. Certainly not a good one. It's more likely you are a guy capable of using Google but not really understanding the results.
One thing I'm sure of, the solution to renewable energy won't be coming from your "creative mind". Good luck with your nose cones.
Re: (Score:2)
The stall speed (minimum speed Vni) of the 172 is listed at 48 or 53 (flaps up or down). The Vr, minimum speed for level flight, is 55.
What's that got to do with the propellers? The propellers can surely propel the plane just fine from 0 mph up; otherwise, how do you start the damn thing? Off a cliff?
Re: (Score:2)
"So you want to make an analogy to prop-driven planes? They are destroyed at three times their minimum operating airspeed."
The only "analogy to prop-driven planes" is your straw man. Planes are required to be lightweight, required strength is an engineering input to the problem, not an inherent limitation.
"Still like that analogy?"
No, but you do! It is, after all, only your analogy.
Actually no, I was replying to the analogy (Score:2)
Actually if you click, you'll see I was replying to someone who said basically:
A given wind turbine design can easily function at both 10MPH and 150MPH, because airplanes do.
Well no, they don't. An airplane that flies at 10uV suffers structural failure at about 30-40uV, because the forces on the structure are so much higher - proportional to velocity cubed.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not disagree with the general message, it's just that a factoid is something that looks like a fact, but isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are prop planes much faster than the Cessna, like the TU 95.
And you'll find that the maximum speed of the TU-95 is about four times it's minimum speed. Not fifteen times. As a matter of fact, no matter WHICH plane to look at, you'll find the maximum speed speed is 2.5-5 times it's minimum speed. This isn't a coincidence. It all has to do with the loading - the forces being the cube of the velocity. The load difference between 3X and 15X is a factor of a hundred.
Re: (Score:2)
Tu-95 has swept wings, it simply cannot fly that slow lest it stalls. Has nothing to do with the load factor. Swept wing aircraft have far larger differences between their minimum and maximum speeds.
OMG look up a fact if you don't know it (Score:2)
> . Swept wing aircraft have far larger differences between their minimum and maximum speeds.
Stall speed of a (swept like the TU) Boeing 737: 140 knots
Maximum speed: 473 knots
Factor: 3.38
I said 2.5-5 and sure enough, it's right in the middle of the range at 3.38.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was supposed to be swing wing instead of swept wing. Take your F-14 as an example. Must be at least 10x difference.
Yeah that's very different (Score:2)
> Yes, that was supposed to be swing wing instead of swept wing.
Ah yes. That's very, very different. A swing wing greatly changes the aspect ratio, becoming a very different wing.
> Take your F-14 as an example. Must be at least 10x difference.
The F-14 has swinging wings, full-length leading edge slats, trailing edge slots, and bleed vanes that can be opened and closed. These significantly change the camber of the wing, the aspect ratio, the total wing area ... two totally different wings. Still, the
Re: (Score:2)
Which plane? You mean like the Concorde which has a maximum speed of about 10x the stall speed? Unless of course you reckon it stalls at 450 miles per hour.
The A380 lands at about 130 knots compared to a top speed of 550. That's already 4.2x.and they don't land at full stall, and that's a loaded plane (not fuel). They can go slower when completely empty. The maximum versus stall speed for a BAe146 plane is 4.2.
I noticed you bumped it up groom 3x to 5x quietly half way through this debate.
You've massively co
Re: (Score:2)
> The A380 lands at about 130 knots compared to a top speed of 550. That's already 4.2x.and they don't land at full stall, and that's a loaded plane
Actually the 130 knot touchdown speed is stalled. A stall means your wings non longer hold you up - which is pretty much the definition of landing. Approach speed I a tad higher, fast enough that with the nose down you don't stall. It would stall in level flight at approach speed.
> That's already 4.2x.
Actually about 4X since you used the touchdown speed, w
Ps, wind turbine blades are actually airfoils (Score:2)
> comparing to aircraft stall speed is utterly irrelevant.
FYI, the wind turbine blades actually are airfoils. Just like airplane wings. In fact, technically they are wings. Like an airplane wing, they have a stall angle which implies a stall speed.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI wind turbines don't have to stay in the air under their own lift.
FYI you've also confused aircraft stall to the related aerofoil stall. Aerofoils which are not supporting their own weight do not have a minimum speed under which they stall.
Re: (Score:2)
> aerofoils which are not supporting their own weight do not have a minimum speed under which they stall.
When flow separation (turbulent vs laminar flow) hits the calculated center of lift at about 25% of the chord from the LE, the airfoil is stalled. It has nothing to do with weight.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not "technically wings", and airfoil does not define a wing. A propellor is a screw, the airfoil makes it work better.
And so what? What does a "stall" in this context matter?
Furthermore, "stall" is irrelevant to the entire point you're trying to make, it's just used by you to establish a minimum speed for which to produce a relatively low speed range. The minimum speed of an aircraft is not a fundamental property of its strength so the entire basis of your argument is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't think you understand this is not an issue of engineering but rather physics."
I understand that it is both.
"You can't build something that moves with a certain amount of force to suddenly increase or change its mass (and size/structure) to withstand a force 4000 times as large."
First off, anyone who says "moves with a certain amount of force" shouldn't be lecturing others on physics. It's not your specialty.
Second, I've never argued that a device could be built that would "suddenly increase or chan
Re:Be sure to factor in the hurricane variable (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms and, if damaged, will need repair before resuming operation
This is a very odd argument. I'm not aware of any infrastructure that holds up well to storms. So the same can be pretty much said for anything versus nature. I get that there's degrees of repair, but pretty much everyone has to take the whole nature versus things distinctly not natural into the equation. That's part of the operating cost... Or at least I would hope that operators are banking some back in the event nature does damage to their operations.
It's like saying that buying a low to the ground car is a bad idea because it might flood in the area, but that's essentially true for anything except for vehicles that are overtly raised and even then that raised vehicle, because it is raised, has a different set of challenges to handle. At any rate, that doesn't negate the whole point of why one ought to invest in insurance that is correctly matched to the investment placed into their vehicle.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms and, if damaged, will need repair before resuming operation
I'm not aware of any infrastructure that holds up well to storms.
Seriously? All of them except wind and solar do well in storms.
Re:Be sure to factor in the hurricane variable (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the "transmission lines" for wind and solar not "do well" while the "transmission lines" for everything else "do well"?
How well do refineries, fossil fuel storage and transportation do in serious storms? Better than wind and solar? Really?
In typical /. fashion, people just make stuff up. Renewal infrastructure largely doesn't exist yet, it's not a given that it can't withstand weather.
Re:Be sure to factor in the hurricane variable (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously? All of them except wind and solar do well in storms.
Just ask all the folks over in Puerto Rico who are STILL without electricity/potable water/food/etc how well "all of then" held up against a hurricane. I live in south Texas fairly close to the gulf and having grown up in the mid west, NOTHING scares me as much as the thought of another hurricane. Nothing stands up well against them.
Re: (Score:3)
" All of them except wind and solar do well in storms."
Better go tell that to Haiti, the Phillippines, Indonesia, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"Similar to the Fukushima problem in that you don't build critical infrastructure where nature has a tendency to beat the shit out of things."
Or you build the infrastructure properly...similar to the Fukushima problem...and you operate it correctly.
They call the people who address these challenges engineers, not /. posters.
A proper solution includes more than just wind turbines not able to sustain high winds but placed in vulnerable areas, but you couldn't tell otherwise from from the geniuses here.
Re: (Score:2)
As the Gulf Coast tends to see tropical systems of varying strength from time to time.
If they buffed up the wind turbines sufficiently they could power North America when a hurricane came through.
They could probably power it with bullets (Score:4, Funny)
Just set up road signs on generators and allow the locals to shoot at them (like they would anyway)
Until (Score:2)
The wind stops.
Then its time for that really big natural gas-fired power plant to fill the gap.
Then its sunny again and the wind works as expected again.
Re:Until (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Until (Score:4, Interesting)
Because there's no such thing as *Grid Scale* batteries.
FIFY
AHEM (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there's no such thing as *Grid Scale* batteries.-> FIFY
Or... maybe there is now. [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
PG&L, the California utility is shuttering three peak power plants fired by natural gas and replacing them with batteries. Four projects, two of them experimental 10 GWh systems. Biggest system (not Tesla) 1.2 GWh, (300 MW times 4 hours), next one (Tesla) 700 MWh (175 MW x 4 hours).
The grid scale batteries are expected to damp down the peak power costs in the spot market. In fact, they are likely t
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the ones in Hawaii, and Australia, and Japan, and Europe, and a bunch of other places.
Wikipedia has a nice overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Low cost energy that stays on 24/7 at a low price is what a productive and export friendly state needs.
Re:Until (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay for extensive battery storage too? Who is going to pay for all this?
Who's going to pay to clean up after fossil fuels?
Low cost energy that stays on 24/7 at a low price is what a productive and export friendly state needs.
A predictable climate is what humanity needs.
Re: (Score:3)
Only having low cost power when the sun is up and then wind is blowing results in changes in power costs.
Thats when the natural gas-fired power plant gets to set any price it wants.
Thats no good for a state that wants to export to the world and needs low cost energy production 24/7.
Who is going to pay for new solar, wind and extensive new battery storage?
Thats going to add to the cost of power. Power that's only low cost when then su
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to pay to clean up after fossil fuels? ... most of the time.
Wrong analogy. But interesting that people as your parent always see costs, but ignore the sunk costs. Obviously sunk costs can not really be recovered
But if they talk about batteries as storage, and ask about costs, well: how much does the stored oil in a country cost? The coal? The coal on ships, the ships carrying it. The oil on ships, the ships carrying it, same for gas.
Obviously there never was a question if you need a pipeline, a
Re: (Score:3)
A predictable climate is what humanity needs.
Are you god? Can you know control the climate?
Reaction the first: Thou art god. We humans have controlled the climate, to a degree. Now we need to do it intelligently.
Reaction the second: Of course not. We humans can't literally control the climate, we can only actually alter it. Which is why we need to stop doing things which are throwing it out of whack, because if we break it, we probably can't fix it.
The truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes. I think it's closer to the latter than the former, which is why we should stop screwing it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Low cost energy that stays on 24/7 at a low price is what a productive and export friendly state needs.
Sure, it's not like those jerks in Europe export anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Only our "Weltanschauung", but you don't like it :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're ok with your grandchildren living underground and eating spiders to survive, but not with raising the cost of exports a tiny bit?
Re: (Score:2)
If you can predict via weather reports when electricity will be cheapest, you can do your energy intensive manufacturing then, and let your less flexible competitors waste money manufacturing at night when there's no wind! Or your competitors can move close to a hydroelectric dam or geothermal or nuclear plant where the electricity flows 24/7. It will be interesting to see what happens. (And it will, one
Re: (Score:2)
Green technology is usually more expensive, so there is a lot of resistance to it from the operators and the users. But the moment Green becomes cheaper, the utilities will adopt it en masse and you could not do a thing to stop it.
PG & L 1.2 GWh batteries, and 750 GWh batteries to replace three natural gas peak power plants. It costs very
Re: (Score:2)
Then its time for that really big natural gas-fired power plant to fill the gap. ... or switch to paper books :D
Na, I sit outside with a jacket and a cover and have a char coal fire and a candle and read my ebooks
Re: (Score:3)
Any hydroelectric power station with a dam can function as a battery. Low flow during the day, high flow during the night.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't happen that quickly, and besides, algae bloom is caused by the fertilizer runoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind doesn't stop when the sun goes down. Weather doesn't take nights off.
Reality versus academics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it.
We get a great deal of hurricanes in the gulf coast, making the real world utility of that much fossil fuel-based energy impractical.
So what? (Score:2)
This is all about the potential. It is also has the potential to run the state on nuclear without coal. How about algae power? Gerbil power?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd probably have to burn an awful lot of gerbils to compete with nuclear.
What do Rice Researchers (Score:2)
know about energy? It's not like there's a lot of unknown science around rice. It's one of the oldest cultivated plants.
As long as Texans... (Score:4, Funny)
horrible mistake to depend 100% on wind/solar (Score:2)
It is one thing to switch from coal to nat gas (cuts CO2 emissions by nearly 1/2), BUT it is foolish to ADD more nat gas plants.
Texas has nuclear power plants. A smart move is to add NuScale reactors in various locations, ideally, within 50 miles of the ocean, using ocean water for cooling.
At the same time, it is easy to add heat based desalination for next to free. Then
The role of government (Score:3)
I lean libertarian, but this article indicates that there really is a role for government to play in renewables that does not boil down to the President writing big checks to his political donors. IMHO, one of the proper roles of government is to enable markets. Building a road system enables farmers to bring their crops to the cities, and for cities to sale their manufactured goods to farmers. It doesn't make sense for either group to build the roads by themselves, and having a third party build, own and control the roads puts to much power in the hands of individuals, and creates innefficient roads since the builder would have to negotiate terms with individual land owners to build the roads in the first place.
The current situation with renewables is that small amounts of power are created at different times of the day in different areas. Getting the power from the western plains to the eastern factories to take advantage of all that wind is problematic (drive across Indiana and you see a large portion of the windmills stopped even though the wind is vigorous). The biggest boost the Feds could give to renewables is to put the federal electricity distribution grid on steroids. Once I can sell my wind produced energy on an open market the size of the US, I'd never let them to stop. And I'd probably put up more for even more passive income.
I know there is currently a federal grid, but it should be beefed up and anyone allowed to participate in the market in the same way that anyone can set up a trucking company.
Texas has been moving in a good direction (Score:3)
But, alas, as a coastal state with a lot of refinery operations, not sure that's going to change much.... there's just too much money there today (emphasis on today).
It's difficult to make any drives on I-45 without seeing many many fan blades in transit.
Solar? Well, I think that we'll see advancements there and the possibility of solar farms.... it's just more of a "land grab" than wind is. But who knows? If a power company sees enough profit, they'll pay the big bucks to get the land required. If Democrats take the White House next election, maybe they'll coerce the power companies so that they'll have no choice, either go solar (major) and earn less money or die completely (a precarious position given that even Democrats love electricity).
Re: but how (Score:2)
Burning sake (rice wine) just doesn't generate much energy.
Re: (Score:2)
But you could use it to run your home without an inverter!
Re:And there is zero upfront cost to build this (Score:4, Insightful)
Versus the cost(s) we face will undoubtedly face later.
Want to place a bet on which one will be greater?
Or will you just plug your ears and sing "la la la la la...." ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was unbearably ignorant. Her logic could just as easily justify a future with no energy at all, and considering that she demonstrates no understanding of the complexities of which she comments, it's unclear how she decides between a future of locally generated power and one where we live in caves. Just how is local generation equipment made when we no longer have an industrial society? Seriously, she's an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely representative of the kind of intellect that would disagree with my comments.
Re:Nicole Foss on renewables (Score:5, Insightful)
If Nicole Foss advocated for using less energy in that video, I couldn't stand the ignorance long enough to see it. Fact is, she predicted a non-industrial future based on unsustainable energy production which she justified by junk science she didn't understand and who's numbers were old, out of date and did not support her claims. She didn't "advocate' for using less energy, she predicted the collapse of known civilization which would force it.
Talking about faith based, to believe her you have as willfully ignorant as any religion.
You know, technology improves. Perhaps Nicole Foss should realize that.
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about faith based, to believe her you have as willfully ignorant as any religion.
touche...
You know, technology improves.
Can I get an "Amen!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get an "Amen!"? ... very easy to pronounce correctly.
If you want an american pronounced Amen, no.
Hint: Amen is a greek word
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get an "Amen!"?
Amen!
Hallelujah!
Preach it br... Errr. I think I am in the wrong building.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose if advocating for the use of less energy is "ignorant", then technological salvation is faith based.
The higher the energy use, the higher the standard of living, and the longer people live.
So yes, its fucking ignorant. Nice club you are in.
Re: (Score:3)
Well so did I but I wouldn't call it good.
"She’s just arguing about the loss on efficiency of needless energy conversion into electricity and the problems with centralized production and distribution."
She argues about more than that and she makes more profound points than that, but she's also frequently wrong on that particular point. For example, she claims that local energy production could operate a home without an inverter. That's just stupid and it demonstrates her poor understanding of the tec
Re: Nicole Foss on renewables (Score:4)
You're desperately arguing against a system that has been proven to work on societal level for many millenia, providing zero citations for your incredible claims. Because on the systemic level, no one cares about a handful of exceptions. It's the principle that rules.
And in "everyone in their small tribal enclave" system, everyone is at constant tribal conflict with their neighbours. Citation: human history.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. I don't fear predation in my life today. Not so in the existence predicted by Nicole. It's not just the neighbors, it's the bears.
You assume the existence of a modern society whose vast umbrella you can live under and benefit from without directly engaging in. That's vastly different than life "off the grid" because no society and no grid exist at all.
Also, your entire argument is based on the idea that law enforcement, and a society of laws, offers no benefit to quality of life. Absurd.
Re:Nicole Foss on renewables (Score:5, Insightful)
Just tax pollution and renewables will pay for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Just tax pollution and renewables will pay for themselves.
Tax + Pollution != Texas, my friend. We need ta be burnin Earl! That's what made Texas the great state it is. And natural gas too, buckeroo! Frac them puppies! Build them platforms!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nicole Foss on renewables (Score:5, Informative)
production of renewables does not pollute?
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that.
Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
Re:Nicole Foss on renewables (Score:4, Insightful)
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around).
Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics.
Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.
No we don't have 100 year old facilities. (Score:2, Interesting)
We have 50 year old stuff, and that's after almost all of it has been replaced many times meaning about all that is still original is the foundations for the original plant footprint.
Re: (Score:3)
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around). Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics. Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.
Assume that you build a wind park that lasts 25 years during which it has an almost inconsequential carbon footprint. If you then renew that wind park after 25 years and replace it with one that lasts 35 years because of improvements in material science during the proceeding 25 years the old one was chugging along, whatever carbon footprint those two wind parks had from production to recycling will be dwarfed by the carbon footprint of operating a coal fired power plant for 60 years. There is just no way yo
Re:Nicole Foss on renewables (Score:5, Insightful)
the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years
Doubtful, given that many manufacturers offer 30+ year warranties. In fact experience tells us that 40+ years is not unreasonable to expect.
Wind turbines are in the 20 year range, but now the technology is more mature we are at a point where we will want to replace them rather than remove them.
But in any case, the manufacturing process is far less polluting than the lifetime pollution created by any other source of electricity.
Re:Nicole Foss on renewables (Score:5, Informative)
There's no pollution in the disposal after its life expectancy?
Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle.
What is the thermodynamic efficiency of renewables, 100%? If not 100%, can the byproducts of its use be used for something else
Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient. The energy we harvest from these renewable energy sources are a sliver of what Earth gets from our star, Sol. That which is not collected is reflected (helping reduce the impact of excess CO2) or blows by and continues acting as part of Earth's global weather system.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle."
Insert magic here!
"Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient."
You should stop talking here, you clearly have a lot of learning to do...if that's possible. An ICE is the "result of the laws of physics", is it 100% efficient? What can that possibly mean?
It's good to know our star is named Sol, though. Thanks for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Runnin' around on fossil fuel,
Until I saw what I was doin'
Was driving down the road to ruin.
-James Taylor
Re: (Score:2)
Well, all the people are moving from California to Texas due to high taxes and regulations promptly forget why they got there and vote again for high taxes and regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
Few people move from CA to TX literally "due to high taxes and regulations"
Based on Census data, people moving out of CA [ca.gov] are families with kids with only a high school education and lower-income are going to TX. High costs of living including housing [cnbc.com] are the chief reason people are leaving.
Those costs are, in part, because of government regulation and taxes that limit supply and increase building costs for new housing. [ca.gov]
No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.
The entire government apparatus that makes people leave CA wasn't put forward by a single vote. People do vote for high taxes and regulations. Some are proud of be
Re: (Score:2)
It's very very sweet, if slightly amazingly stupid, that you think that fossil fuel power plants represent a more distributed form of energy generation than PV.