Renewables in US Set for Fast Growth

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Bobby P said:

I never said we shouldn't look for alternatives. But the fact that someone has the audacity to state that "FF" are directly involved in harming "humans" is just wrong. When, it's quite the opposite. 

That statement  is not wrong. The combustion of fossil fuels harms human health in varying degrees according to what is being burnt, how it is burnt and in what proximity to humans it occurs - this is irrefutable proven fact. Arguing against this fact is on a par with arguing the world is flat. 

The balance of the argument of course is that fossil fuels have also bought many benefits to humankind - affordable warmth, light, medicines, low cost travel etc etc some of which have health benefits too. 

[Danial Gable + 20]

On 1/22/2019 at 3:59 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Spoons make people fat.  Tru fax.

thats why chop sticks are so brilliant

[Danial Gable + 20]

Carbon monoxide exposure i suppose, would be high in the concrete metrolpolis jungles where the pollution just sits odorlessly and silently at street level, for plenty of people to continuously inhale. The carbon monoxide simply attaches to your red blood cells, and inhibits them to transport oxygen to every other region of your body.  One of the main contributers to most forms of cancer is "lack of oxygen" and another is excessive toxic consumption.  And actually this makes me think of something else interessting.....   Take our modern period, and look at cancer rates, look at carbon fuel and other toxic industries. AS we transition to a greener society, an unforrseen consequence could likely be a reduction in human cancer rates.  It makes sense to me, that as we become a healthier society, its not a matter of GSK, Bayer, Phizer, to come up with the next miracle drug, but more likely we become smarter and healthier, and yet still keeping a few toxins to balance us out.   Anyways the miracles reside in the nutrients and phytonutrients  that are present in REAL food. 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, John N Denver said:

Some of the states with mandates that have been surpassed.

IA: required 105MW of generating capacity; 2017: 37.2%, 7,312MW wind installed, 2,582MW under construction
KS: required 20% by 2020; 2017: 36.1%
MN: required 40% by 2017; 2017: 46.1% (75.9% w/hydro)
MT: required 15% by 2015; 2017: 45.1% w/hydro, 7.8% w/o
ND: required 10% by 2015; 2017: 31.8% w/hydro, 26.9% w/o
OK: required 15% by 2015; 2017: 32.3%, (36.1 w/hydro)
OR: required 25% by 2025; 2017: 76.3% w/hydro, (13.6% w/o)
SC: required 2% by 2021; 2017: 2.99%, (5.9% w/hydro)
SD: required 10% by 2015; 2017: 30.2% (73.1% w/hydro)
TX: required 10,000MW by 2025; 2017: 15.6%, 23,000MW wind installed, 6,000
under construction
VT: required 75% by 2032; 2017: 99.6% w/hydro (41.3% w/o)
WA: required 15% by 2020; 2017: 80% w/hydro (8.2% w/o)

Based on your incorrect supposition that if you withdraw the legislative mandates wind and solar will go away and stay away none of the mandates should have been exceeded.  But they have been - some by a huge margin.  And, you have states like Idaho which has no mandate, and yet, somehow manages to have 21.9% of it's electricity generated by non-hydro renewable.

Adding hydro to the mix proves nothing except that it is needed to up the figures. We have had hydro for decades. It is also not useful in droughts so demands backup generation. Hydro is wonderful IMO, but many greens do not like reservoirs.

[markslawson + 1,042]

20 hours ago, John N Denver said:

Based on your incorrect supposition that if you withdraw the legislative mandates wind and solar will go away and stay away none of the mandates should have been exceeded.  But they have been - some by a huge margin.  And, you have states like Idaho which has no mandate, and yet, somehow manages to have 21.9% of it's electricity generated by non-hydro renewable.

John - its good that you're quoting figures with and without hydro. That reduces confusion. As for the mandate figure okay, you're comment is way better than the responses I usually get and, yes, sometimes the mandates are exceeded. But in all cases you will find that subsidies are to blame.. so its not just about mandates. To discuss the first case you quote, Iowa, I spent a little time looking at the tax incentives. That state has a 1 cent per kilowatt hour state tax credit which doesn't sound like much but for the 20 billion kw/hrs produced in 2016 that actually works out to $200 million. Then there is the Federal productive incentive which is worth more and another Federal tax credit now ended I think, also worth more than the state credit, plus various other state tax credits and concession. Plus any money they can get for the power. All in all a nice little earner. But how does the state grid balance so much wind with coal production (the other major power source) this is impossible, as coal is inflexible. Gas would be better but Iowa hasn't switched The answer seems to be that it exports the power to Illinois (much larger grid) and Wisconsin, so it could be like German who maintains high wind power input by the fiction that it exports its brown coal power to Poland and the Serbia.. so the coal plants don't vary much in output but when the wind comes on more power is exported.. So the state grid operators don't seem to mind as they earn money but its one of those cases where the state mandate has been exceeded due to subsidies and local conditions (wind power works better than elsewhere, and there's a lot of open land), but the grid operators has been able to cope. I haven't looked at the others but you get the idea. Still a community choice I'm afraid. Leave it with you.

[John N Denver + 25]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Adding hydro to the mix proves nothing except that it is needed to up the figures. We have had hydro for decades. It is also not useful in droughts so demands backup generation. Hydro is wonderful IMO, but many greens do not like reservoirs.

In some cases hydro by itself fulfills the RE mandate and there would have been no reason to add solar or wind.  But solar and/or wind were still added.

[Boat + 1,315]

So FF had nothing to do with black lung disease, acid rain, refinery explosions, pipeline leaks not to mention trillions in military intervention. I’m sure there are comprehensive detailed lists at the Sierra Club for example.

All of these unfortunate byproducts of FF are real and kill and sicken humans. But you gotta have energy to live. Bottom line

To me its a silly debate. Humans should always strive for cleaner alternatives. In the long run the market will decide what tech can compete different types of FF. 

In Texas for example wind and nat gas are the latest winners while coal plants are shutting down. Why? It isn't pollution from coal. Wind and nat gas are simply cheaper.

If your a FF fan, blame capitalism and the markets.

[Boat + 1,315]

As a side note, a 12 MW wind turbine is being installed that will generate enough electricity for 16,000 homes per day. Tech is improving.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/23/2019 at 4:06 PM, Bobby P said:

I never said we shouldn't look for alternatives. But the fact that someone has the audacity to state that "FF" are directly involved in harming "humans" is just wrong. When, it's quite the opposite. 

Eh?

Emissions from burning fossil fuels directly harm health in varying degrees according to how it is burnt, what is being burnt and in what proximity to people. 

For example what comes out of of cars exhaust gases containing particulates (respiratory irritants and carrier for many carcinogens) , Benzene (a known carcinogen and CNS depressant), aldehydes (many are carcinogenic), Carbon Monoxide (asphxiant and factor in the development of atherosclerosis ), VOC's (CNS depressant), Nitrogen Oxide / Dioxide (respiratory irritant), Ozone (respiratory irritant) , 

Diesel exhaust is internationally recognised as a carcinogen

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr213_E.pdf

 

Meanwhile in other news:

The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West

The World is indeed Spherical

The Moon isn't made of Green Cheese. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

17 hours ago, Boat said:

As a side note, a 12 MW wind turbine is being installed that will generate enough electricity for 16,000 homes per day. Tech is improving.

 

But let us remember that that monster is going to be - what? -  450 feet tall, and will have gigantic blades of - what? - 275 feet length each side, and tip windspeed at the sonic-boom barrier, and will require an excavation filled with concrete and rebar extending down 50 feet and 130 feet to the square, and a road built up to the top of the mountain ridgeline the width of an Interstate, with a grade of only 4%, and backfilled with vast amounts of gravel to support the gigantic crane that has to go up there to lift the tower sections and that generator into place, totally destroying at least four linear miles of pristine and fragile mountaintop ecosystems, just to be set in place.  Those machines, at least if installed on land, are a total and complete folly, a monument to ego and hubris, and will wreck the world. 

[John N Denver + 25]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

But let us remember that that monster is going to be - what? -  450 feet tall, and will have gigantic blades of - what? - 275 feet length each side, and tip windspeed at the sonic-boom barrier, and will require an excavation filled with concrete and rebar extending down 50 feet and 130 feet to the square, and a road built up to the top of the mountain ridgeline the width of an Interstate, with a grade of only 4%, and backfilled with vast amounts of gravel to support the gigantic crane that has to go up there to lift the tower sections and that generator into place, totally destroying at least four linear miles of pristine and fragile mountaintop ecosystems, just to be set in place.  Those machines, at least if installed on land, are a total and complete folly, a monument to ego and hubris, and will wreck the world. 

Why would you need a road for offshore wind turbines?

 

And, yeah, much better to have the mountain top removed for coal electric generation.

[markslawson + 1,042]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 2:14 PM, John N Denver said:

Based on your incorrect supposition that if you withdraw the legislative mandates wind and solar will go away and stay away none of the mandates should have been exceeded.  But they have been - some by a huge margin.  And, you have states like Idaho which has no mandate, and yet, somehow manages to have 21.9% of it's electricity generated by non-hydro renewable.

I realised that I approached the problem incorrectly in my previous response. Iowa isn't a separate state grid so they are not faced with the problem of balancing so much wind with coal - its part of something larger called the Midcontinent Independent System Operator which runs the market and would balance loads. The Iowa wind farms output would be used to meet mandates and targets elsewhere and would be well suited to it.. silly me, but there you go. Looking at just what happens in each of the states you cite would be tiresome but you'll find a similar story in each.. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

But let us remember that that monster is going to be - what? -  450 feet tall, and will have gigantic blades of - what? - 275 feet length each side, and tip windspeed at the sonic-boom barrier, and will require an excavation filled with concrete and rebar extending down 50 feet and 130 feet to the square, and a road built up to the top of the mountain ridgeline the width of an Interstate, with a grade of only 4%, and backfilled with vast amounts of gravel to support the gigantic crane that has to go up there to lift the tower sections and that generator into place, totally destroying at least four linear miles of pristine and fragile mountaintop ecosystems, just to be set in place.  Those machines, at least if installed on land, are a total and complete folly, a monument to ego and hubris, and will wreck the world. 

https://goo.gl/maps/sTEtZiELgLL2

This link is shows what the Permian Basin looks like from space. How much of the 'disturbed earth' is oil wells, and how much of it is wind turbines? Anyone complaining about a messed up landscape should keep this in perspective.

[Otis11 + 551]

5 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

https://goo.gl/maps/sTEtZiELgLL2

This link is shows what the Permian Basin looks like from space. How much of the 'disturbed earth' is oil wells, and how much of it is wind turbines? Anyone complaining about a messed up landscape should keep this in perspective.

I'll give you a hint... you gotta drive about an hour to hit the first wind mill... and that's only if you go South East, North, or North East. Go West and it's an awful long ways...

But the wells are so close the city is actually land-locked. Can't build any more houses until we take out more wells... (those houses are needed  to...due to the current boom)

[lesrof2evils + 13]

On 1/21/2019 at 4:39 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

EIA forecasts renewables will be fastest growing source of electricity generation

Looks like this topic is about dead, but with the latest guesses about US oil reserves and production I betting on and supporting renewable growth.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Good luck with that. 

[JunoTen + 118]

On 1/22/2019 at 7:44 PM, NickW said:

If the subsidy goes direct to the consumer in the form of a cashback* then this creates an incentive to buy an EV. As production levels grow, propmoted by the cashback this generates significant economies of scale for the manufacturer which further reduces costs. 

We have seen this work in this way with Solar and Wind where costs have been massively reduced over the past couple of decades. 

*The subsidy can be alternative viewed as a reward to the consumer for opting for a vehicle with zero tail pipe emissions. The main benefit of EV's are the health benefits of zero tailpipe emissions, particularly in urban environments. Reducing CO2 is a secondary consideration. 

That does make sense.

The problem that I have with it is first that it's help given to a player in a competitive market with taxpayer money, and the second is that the EVs that are sold now thanks to subsidies suck in comparison with those that will be sold in a few years from now, which will be cheaper without subsidies and much better in quality (range etc). I just don't see this as a smart use of taxpayer money.

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, JunoTen said:

That does make sense.

The problem that I have with it is first that it's help given to a player in a competitive market with taxpayer money, and the second is that the EVs that are sold now thanks to subsidies suck in comparison with those that will be sold in a few years from now, which will be cheaper without subsidies and much better in quality (range etc). I just don't see this as a smart use of taxpayer money.

Isn't that the case with just about anything ever invented. 

My Samsung s4 beats my old Nokia hands down. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/24/2019 at 8:28 PM, Jan van Eck said:

But let us remember that that monster is going to be - what? -  450 feet tall, and will have gigantic blades of - what? - 275 feet length each side, and tip windspeed at the sonic-boom barrier, and will require an excavation filled with concrete and rebar extending down 50 feet and 130 feet to the square, and a road built up to the top of the mountain ridgeline the width of an Interstate, with a grade of only 4%, and backfilled with vast amounts of gravel to support the gigantic crane that has to go up there to lift the tower sections and that generator into place, totally destroying at least four linear miles of pristine and fragile mountaintop ecosystems, just to be set in place.  Those machines, at least if installed on land, are a total and complete folly, a monument to ego and hubris, and will wreck the world. 

But that one site, comparable in size to that of an oil well can produce energy for ever accepting you have to periodically replace the turbine. 

From a joules perspective that 12MW produces the equivalent of 57 barrels of oil per  per day but it is electricity so you can at least double that to account for the fact electricity is the highest form of energy in terms of flexibility of use. 

12MW with a 33% capacity factor will provide sufficient electricity to charge EV's to the equivalent of 160-170 million km per year. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 1/24/2019 at 5:47 PM, John N Denver said:

Why would you need a road for offshore wind turbines?

 

And, yeah, much better to have the mountain top removed for coal electric generation.

You know perfectly well that I was referring specifically to ridgeline wind-machine installations, not sea propellers. 

SInce you insist on insulting and belittling me, I shall leave this Forum.  No more postings from Jan. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 1/22/2019 at 2:13 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

^ this.

Bwahahahaha.  One new anti -oil & gas poster has given me 4 downvotes in the last hour.  Amusing.  The downvotes are not even for any of my "controversial" comments that I might expect some people may reasonably object to.

Quick Deadpool game, can I rack up a dirty dozen downvotes this week from new anti - oil & gas posters?  Any friendly wagers?

 

[JunoTen + 118]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

Isn't that the case with just about anything ever invented. 

My Samsung s4 beats my old Nokia hands down. 

Your Nokia wasn't subsidized with taxpayer money and wasn't intended to last as long as a car does. Also it costs much less.

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, JunoTen said:

Your Nokia wasn't subsidized with taxpayer money and wasn't intended to last as long as a car does. Also it costs much less.

The argument for subsidising EV's is around health considerations in that EV's virtually eliminate tailpipe and other emissions (particulates from brake wear etc) in populated areas. The health effects of traffic emissions are primarily related to the proximity of their production to the population. You don't get the same level of effect from pollutants when the power station is 10 miles away from urban areas. If your power sources are renewable or nuclear even better because you don't get the remote effects either. 

Nokia v Samsung - well no health considerations from one model to another. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

You know perfectly well that I was referring specifically to ridgeline wind-machine installations, not sea propellers. 

SInce you insist on insulting and belittling me, I shall leave this Forum.  No more postings from Jan. 

How many times have we heard this......🙄

His point was that there are a lot worse things you can do to a Mountain ridgeline than put a turbine on it. Effectively blowing it up being a good example to exploit coal resources. 

Personally I would avoid putting turbines on ridgelines in areas of outstanding natural beauty. This is something the UK have enforced in its National parks.  

[John N Denver + 25]

On 1/26/2019 at 4:09 PM, NickW said:

But that one site, comparable in size to that of an oil well can produce energy for ever accepting you have to periodically replace the turbine. 

From a joules perspective that 12MW produces the equivalent of 57 barrels of oil per  per day but it is electricity so you can at least double that to account for the fact electricity is the highest form of energy in terms of flexibility of use. 

12MW with a 33% capacity factor will provide sufficient electricity to charge EV's to the equivalent of 160-170 million km per year. 

Even better is the CF for the 12MW turbines is expected to be over 60%.