"Renewable" Energy or Hydrocarbons Keeping People From Freezing Their Butts Off This Week in U.S.?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

So how's that "renewable energy" Solar and Wind power working out this week for militant environmental extremists in the U.S. who demand to keep oil & gas in the ground?

●  Basking in the warm glow of lovely Solar Panels?    (Better hope the sky isn't cloudy.)

●  Wind turbines working fine in sub-zero temperatures and cranking out lots of electricity?  Mechanical parts not frozen up?   (The stronger the wind, the colder the wind chill factor... did anybody think this through?)

●  Or perhaps quietly and begrudgingly burning hydrocarbons to stay warm?

Just curious.  

 

Oh, and someone sent me this graphic:

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

14 hours and not one response?  Hmmm.

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

I'm in north east Ohio,,, 30 miles south of Lake Erie

I love my cheap natural gas!!!   4 people, two dogs and three cats all warm and cozy.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

14 hours and not one response?  Hmmm.

I wouldn't assume that many people use electricity directly to heat their homes. In a Mid West climate prone to severe winters I assume most people would use gas, oil or solid fuels at a push. 

RE Wind

Modern turbines will operate routinely down to -30 degrees C so they will be able to operate most of the time in most places over the mid west this week. The Nascelles are insulated and louvres that open up ventilation are thermostatically controlled. 

Wind speeds appear to be  reasonable across the region and good in the lakes area.

http://windmapper.com/MW/observations

Cold air is denser than warm air so for a given wind speed the turbine will produce more energy😎

As for solar:

if you check that weather map lots of partially sunny skies across the region so PV will be making a contribution. I don't know how much solar is used in that part of the World. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Funny, I couldn't find any webcams for any of the Illinois wind farms.  Does anyone know of any links?  I'd sure like to see those suckers spinning in that nice dense, cold air.

[NickW + 2,714]

18 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Funny, I couldn't find any webcams for any of the Illinois wind farms.  Does anyone know of any links?  I'd sure like to see those suckers spinning in that nice dense, cold air.

Do you have websites like these which give realtime outputs from different energy sources? 

http://gridwatch.co.uk/

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=eds/main

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

13 minutes ago, NickW said:

Do you have websites like these which give realtime outputs from different energy sources? 

http://gridwatch.co.uk/

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=eds/main

 

Don't know.  The UK is 1.71 times the size of Illinois, so it would seem that such state by state data would be available.  Anyway, I would just like to see the propellers turn.  I've driven through Illinois wind farm country on my trips back to the States on many occasions and I'd say that roughly 10-15% of them were turning on any given winter's day when I drove through.  Just a hunch, but I'll bet the energy companies or the state legislators decided the consumers created too many problems when they weren't turning, so they "disallowed" webcams with live feeds?

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Don't know.  The UK is 1.71 times the size of Illinois, so it would seem that such state by state data would be available.  Anyway, I would just like to see the propellers turn.  I've driven through Illinois wind farm country on my trips back to the States on many occasions and I'd say that roughly 10-15% of them were turning on any given winter's day when I drove through.  Just a hunch, but I'll bet the energy companies or the state legislators decided the consumers created too many problems when they weren't turning, so they "disallowed" webcams with live feeds?

Post that linky then and lets have a look

Anyway - nothing stopping anyone filming from the roadside. They are not military sites and I assume the USA, like the UK hasn't turned into a fascist state. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

9 minutes ago, NickW said:

Post that linky then and lets have a look

Anyway - nothing stopping anyone filming from the roadside. They are not military sites and I assume the USA, like the UK hasn't turned into a fascist state. 

Linky for what?  That's the point; there are no links/live feeds/webcams.

It's 22C BELOW ZERO right about now in Illinois, so I doubt any of the good citizens are out there filming.  Live feed set up on the side of a barn would seem to work better, and since there don't appear to be any I'd say they have regulations against live feed cams from fixed positions or some such rubbish.

[NickW + 2,714]

10 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Linky for what?  That's the point; there are no links/live feeds/webcams.

It's 22C BELOW ZERO right about now in Illinois, so I doubt any of the good citizens are out there filming.  Live feed set up on the side of a barn would seem to work better, and since there don't appear to be any I'd say they have regulations against live feed cams from fixed positions or some such rubbish.

Do the utilities not post production from generating plant? 

On the issue of banning live feeds that does surprise me in the land of the free. 

Coincidentally we current have anti cyclonic conditions in the UK (albeit somewhat warmer) and the Uk fleet of approx 17GW is kicking out over 6GW right now. 

[NickW + 2,714]

44 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Don't know.  The UK is 1.71 times the size of Illinois, so it would seem that such state by state data would be available.  Anyway, I would just like to see the propellers turn.  I've driven through Illinois wind farm country on my trips back to the States on many occasions and I'd say that roughly 10-15% of them were turning on any given winter's day when I drove through.  Just a hunch, but I'll bet the energy companies or the state legislators decided the consumers created too many problems when they weren't turning, so they "disallowed" webcams with live feeds?

Assuming there was sufficient wind and only 10-15% were turning then that sounds more like a lack of maintenance. 

GE were producing wind turbines in 2009 which could operate at -30 degrees C so they will easily cope with most of the conditions thrown at them during this 'polar vortex'. I accept in some extreme conditions (typically early hours of the morning) they may drop into hibernation mode when the mercury hits -40 (degC) 

https://nawindpower.com/ge-wind-turbine-now-available-for-extreme-cold-weather-capabilities

[sandbun 0]

Considering the big power issues that occurred during the polar vortex in 2014 generally involving either natural gas - pipelines freezing/slowing down the flow or other issues with keeping the plants supplied with natural gas - or issues at coal plants where the equipment there failed or the coal piles themselves just froze solid and couldn't be moved/used, not sure why all the big concern with green energy sources this time around. Unless, you know, you just wanted an excuse to kick the hippies. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/3/16844854/energy-markets-coal-bailout-winter-cold-snap

Edited January 31, 2019 by sandbun

[taamvan + 19]

As much as I enjoy learning about the oil industry, your contempt for non-petro energy does not become you.    The key concept is "mix".   

Overdependence one method of generating power/energy raises demand and its price and makes the argument for its efficiency in isolation much weaker. 

I should get you guys a copy of the classic German board game Funkenschlag (Power Grid)--which models input demand pretty well for a simple game.  If everyone buys coal fired power plants, each next unit of initially cheap coal gets more expensive and thus makes the other inputs (trash, oil, and uranium) appear cheaper in comparison.

Alternatives and a diverse mix keep each type of production rational in terms of consumer price and cost.

Non-standard methods and technologies will typically be more expensive than established infrastructure, and governments and ratepayers have to make that hard choice, though apparently, Americans cannot afford hard or expensive choices or our ostensibly healthy economy would collapse.

Deny climate change if you like.  I perceive that several major "natural" disasters in the last 10 or so years would likely have not occurred in its absence.  

Good Luck, Have Fun.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

I wouldn't assume that many people use electricity directly to heat their homes. In a Mid West climate prone to severe winters I assume most people would use gas, oil or solid fuels at a push. 

RE Wind

Modern turbines will operate routinely down to -30 degrees C so they will be able to operate most of the time in most places over the mid west this week. The Nascelles are insulated and louvres that open up ventilation are thermostatically controlled. 

Wind speeds appear to be  reasonable across the region and good in the lakes area.

http://windmapper.com/MW/observations

Cold air is denser than warm air so for a given wind speed the turbine will produce more energy😎

As for solar:

if you check that weather map lots of partially sunny skies across the region so PV will be making a contribution. I don't know how much solar is used in that part of the World. 

Good information. I would like to know when it is projected that they could meet all the transportation and heating needs of the United States. I think natural gas and petroleum are what I will rely on but it would be great to have a fully integrated transmission system that it is able to tie all energy sources together yet also allow individual small areas to run independently in case of various disaster scenarios. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by ronwagn

[NickW + 2,714]

14 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Good information. I would like to know when it is projected that they could meet all the transportation and heating needs of the United States. I think natural gas and petroleum are what I will rely on but it would be great to have a fully integrated transmission system that it is able to tie all energy sources together yet also allow individual small areas to run independently in case of various disaster scenarios. 

As Taamvan said - there is a certain value in having a mix of energy sources. 

Wind and solar have never been promoted as an option to meet all transportation and heating needs. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

45 minutes ago, taamvan said:

As much as I enjoy learning about the oil industry, your contempt for non-petro energy does not become you.    The key concept is "mix".   

I'm guessing you have never been face to face with a militant anti - oil & gas extremist.

"Renewable" energy is not exactly "cleaner" than natural gas, despite media hype.

Knock yourself out with "renewable" energy.  Just don't scream that oil & gas is evil and will kill the human race.

"Renewable" energy will not replace oil & gas any time soon.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

26 minutes ago, NickW said:

Wind and solar have never been promoted as an option to meet all transportation and heating needs. 

You should probably read the actual "Green New Deal" being championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Here is a link and an excerpt:

A Green New Deal

TRANSFORM TO A LOW-CARBON ECONOMY

The United States needs to reduce its annual greenhouse emissions from 2016 by 16 percent to achieve our 2025 reduction target communicated through the Paris Agreement, and 77 percent to reach our 2050 target. To strive for the global goal of a 1.5-degree future, the U.S. should aim for zero net emissions by mid-century. This requires massive economic and technological transformation in how we create and consume energy, build structures, and transport people and goods. This transformation must accelerate now.

CLEAN & RENEWABLE ENERGY

✔ 100% Clean and Renewable Electricity by 2035

All electricity consumed in America must be generated by renewable sources, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, sustainable biomass, and renewable natural gas, as well as clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture.

✔ Zero Net Emissions from Energy by 2050

We must end all emissions from fossil fuels. The full U.S. economy can and must run on a mix of energy that is either zero-emission or 100 percent carbon capture by mid-century. This includes residential, commercial, and industrial electricity; thermal energy; and transportation.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

✔ 100% Net-Zero Building Energy Standards by 2030

Buildings can stand and operate for over 100 years, and current building standards are not in line with goals for deep decarbonization. Yet buildings also have the highest potential for low-cost emission reductions of all sectors. We must start constructing and retrofitting to the highest performance standards now to avoid locking in outdated technology and to reach these goals by mid-century. New technological innovation every year will push the potential of building and industrial efficiency, helping American citizens and businesses lower energy costs and be more competitive.

TRANSPORTATION

✔ 100% Zero Emission Passenger Vehicles by 2030

The technologies already exist; we only need to scale-up charging infrastructure and consumer incentives to transition 100 percent of sales to zero emission passenger and light duty vehicles by 2030, followed with a swift phase out of internal combustion engines.

✔ 100% Fossil-Free Transportation by 2050

To reach decarbonization goals, we must transition away quickly from the use of fossil fuels in aviation, heavy duty vehicles, and rail. Not everything can be electrified, meaning we must innovate and scale up the next generation of biofuels and carbon-neutral fuels.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

A great plan to castrate the freedom loving countries and allow the communists to take over. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by ronwagn

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

ZOMG  RUSSIA  RUSSIA  RUSSIA  ! ! 

ELEVENTY  ! !  !   !    !      !!!!!!!!

What Would You Do If Putin Cut Your Heat Amid Extreme Temperatures?

Extreme weather, merciless cold in the Midwest United States, snow squalls bringing near-whiteout conditions to the Northeast, nine dead, schools and postal service in many states canceled, and airports closed — an "act of God" as they say, yet MSNBC's Rachel Maddow still found a way to make it all about Putin. 

She breathlessly reported Wednesday evening that life-threatening cold weather in the US could be weaponized by Russia. Maddow invoked a recent intelligence assessment which speculated over Russia and China's abilities to launch cyber-attacks on critical US infrastructure, including natural gas pipelines. Running with this "what if" scenario, she launched into her now well-known conspiracy theorizing and fear-mongering, saying "It is life-threatening! And it is like negative 50 degrees in the Dakotas right now."

Maddow told her MSNBC audience:

We're relying on their [Russia and China's] good graces that they're not [attacking us]. It is life-threatening. And it is like negative 50 degrees in the Dakotas right now. What would happen if Russia killed the power in Fargo?

Posing more questions that perhaps rival Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" statement when it was Iraq and not Russia as the media's latest boogeyman, she continued:

What would happen if all the natural gas lines that service Sioux Falls just poofed on the coldest day in recent memory and it wasn't in our power whether to turn them back on? What would you do if you lost heat indefinitely as the act of a foreign power?

...On the same day the temperature in your backyard matched the temperature in Antarctica... What would you and your family do? 

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

18 hours ago, NickW said:

Do you have websites like these which give realtime outputs from different energy sources? 

http://gridwatch.co.uk/

^ That's incredible!  Seriously, nothing like good information to help people understand.  Education is the key to most issues.

 

 

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

16 hours ago, sandbun said:

kick the hippies.

Hippy kickers,,, sorry it just made me laugh, I'd never heard that one before

...and just to help keep the peace, I certainly identify more as a hippy, versus someone who would kick anyone

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

A great plan to castrate the freedom loving countries and allow the communists to take over. 

Ron - That is on the portion of ones income that is greater than $10 million dollars so it really does not affect 99.9% of the people. In the 1950's and 60's the tax rate in the US on incomes at that level was 90%. Was that not the GOP good old days? You need to watch the 'news' part of Fox-not the 'opinion' part seeing as they just make stuff up.

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You should probably read the actual "Green New Deal" being championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Here is a link and an excerpt:

A Green New Deal

TRANSFORM TO A LOW-CARBON ECONOMY

The United States needs to reduce its annual greenhouse emissions from 2016 by 16 percent to achieve our 2025 reduction target communicated through the Paris Agreement, and 77 percent to reach our 2050 target. To strive for the global goal of a 1.5-degree future, the U.S. should aim for zero net emissions by mid-century. This requires massive economic and technological transformation in how we create and consume energy, build structures, and transport people and goods. This transformation must accelerate now.

CLEAN & RENEWABLE ENERGY

✔ 100% Clean and Renewable Electricity by 2035

All electricity consumed in America must be generated by renewable sources, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, sustainable biomass, and renewable natural gas, as well as clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture.

✔ Zero Net Emissions from Energy by 2050

We must end all emissions from fossil fuels. The full U.S. economy can and must run on a mix of energy that is either zero-emission or 100 percent carbon capture by mid-century. This includes residential, commercial, and industrial electricity; thermal energy; and transportation.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

✔ 100% Net-Zero Building Energy Standards by 2030

Buildings can stand and operate for over 100 years, and current building standards are not in line with goals for deep decarbonization. Yet buildings also have the highest potential for low-cost emission reductions of all sectors. We must start constructing and retrofitting to the highest performance standards now to avoid locking in outdated technology and to reach these goals by mid-century. New technological innovation every year will push the potential of building and industrial efficiency, helping American citizens and businesses lower energy costs and be more competitive.

TRANSPORTATION

✔ 100% Zero Emission Passenger Vehicles by 2030

The technologies already exist; we only need to scale-up charging infrastructure and consumer incentives to transition 100 percent of sales to zero emission passenger and light duty vehicles by 2030, followed with a swift phase out of internal combustion engines.

✔ 100% Fossil-Free Transportation by 2050

To reach decarbonization goals, we must transition away quickly from the use of fossil fuels in aviation, heavy duty vehicles, and rail. Not everything can be electrified, meaning we must innovate and scale up the next generation of biofuels and carbon-neutral fuels.

 

I am all for this plan Tom provided we get there by reducing the demand side of the equation. The supply side needs to simply be regulated better (put out those flares!).

People that protest progress (like new pipelines) are just too lazy to change their life style. The bad guy is not the oil patch - it is the end users.

It is no use to protest the local grocery store when you need to lose weight. It is just stupidity.

Plus - wind turbines work fine most of the time in Alberta thru winter - and we get those cold days quite often. We don't have the moisture in the air -that might be a problem for icing in Illinois.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

21 hours ago, NickW said:

Assuming there was sufficient wind and only 10-15% were turning then that sounds more like a lack of maintenance. 

GE were producing wind turbines in 2009 which could operate at -30 degrees C so they will easily cope with most of the conditions thrown at them during this 'polar vortex'. I accept in some extreme conditions (typically early hours of the morning) they may drop into hibernation mode when the mercury hits -40 (degC) 

https://nawindpower.com/ge-wind-turbine-now-available-for-extreme-cold-weather-capabilities

I didn't mean to imply it was due to the windmills not working; just no wind.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

20 hours ago, sandbun said:

Unless, you know, you just wanted an excuse to kick the hippies. 

LOL!