U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2019, 01:45 PM
 
21,477 posts, read 11,588,156 times
Reputation: 12255

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
https://electrek.co/2019/06/10/us-re...capacity-coal/

That's quite amazing and I am excited to be a part of it. Coal generation down for about 35% a few years back to 21% and it will continue to fall. Renewables growing by the equiv. of a couple nuke plants per year...and, lets face it, after watching Chernobyl there are probably few Americans pimping for more nukes (ain't gonna happen anyway.
You are part of it? How?

And what does “pimping” mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2019, 01:51 PM
 
15,087 posts, read 3,983,077 times
Reputation: 10936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Renewables are a joke. We have so much fossil fuels they should be considered like a renewable. You can rely on solar and wind. (But you can't because its unreliable, and too small) The rest of us rely on real energy. Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Hydro, Nuke.
Ah, you mention the biggest renewable in your rant...but probably didn't even realize it. Hydro....

"In 2017, renewables accounted for 70 percent of net additions to global generating capacity, the report said."

70 percent. YES. That's something to be excited about.

180 GW of renewables installed worldwide in one year - that is the equiv of 50-60 nuke plants.

That's a good thing.

Those who don't understand energy will always say "yeah, but when the sun doesn't shine" - without understanding that.....

1. The mine doesn't always produce
2. The Railroad and pipelines don't always work
3. Boilers need shutdown and cleaning

And many other factors. I love my hybrid car.....43.5 MPG on a BIG sedan. Am I angry that it has "backup" or that it "regenerates" going down a hill or braking? If I was a conservative I'd be yelling "BUT BUT...all roads are not downhill".

THAT is exactly the equiv. of the "debate point" many cons give for their love of breathing more pollutants. It's simply not going to work in any logical debate.

This is like saying "I shouldn't save 10% on my monthly bills because it's not 100%". Even a con who loves smoke, particulates, respiratory disease and other fossil fuels benefits can understand how silly that would be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 01:53 PM
 
15,087 posts, read 3,983,077 times
Reputation: 10936
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
You are part of it? How?

And what does “pimping” mean?
Pushing. Like in others threads here last money PUSHING for more nukes to solve our problems. Look them up if you like.

As we said in the 1980's, there is no need to poison 100's of future generations in order to run your TV. We can do it in simpler, better and less centralized and capital intensive manners.

Every Americans should be cheering this...but I suppose some only come around once the job is finished. You didn't build that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 01:55 PM
 
26,549 posts, read 19,016,439 times
Reputation: 14206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
Nah, Germany has already pretty much proven wind and solar are a pipe dream.

Our vastly over-built wind and solar farms will soon lie abandoned and forgotten without a grid-scale storage solution.
from a previous thread -

Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future

"Germany's Federal Court of Auditors is even more forthright about the failures. The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures "are in extreme disproportion to the results," Federal Court of Auditors President Kay Scheller said last fall, although his assessment went largely unheard in the political arena. Scheller is even concerned that voters could soon lose all faith in the government because of this massive failure."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 01:58 PM
 
15,087 posts, read 3,983,077 times
Reputation: 10936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
Nah, Germany has already pretty much proven wind and solar are a pipe dream.

Our vastly over-built wind and solar farms will soon lie abandoned and forgotten without a grid-scale storage solution.
The DHW panels I put on my house in 1979 are still working. That's 40 years.

If they cost me $2K net - and saved even $400 a year, that's a clear "profit" of 15K....MANY TIMES THAT if you figure the savings was tax-free (money you didn't spend) and invested. If it was invested at market rates over the last 40 years, that would be 155K in profit.

What it is about money you don't like?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Loleta, CA
1,151 posts, read 962,262 times
Reputation: 1640
Good. Coal is a trash energy source and needs to be phased out as quickly as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:04 PM
 
44,940 posts, read 17,878,270 times
Reputation: 18851
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
180 GW of renewables installed worldwide in one year - that is the equiv of 50-60 nuke plants.

That's a good thing..
And 0 GW 0f base load requirements. That's equivalent to 0 nuke plants. A nuke can operate at 99% availability 24 hours/day. Renewable? They are good to hit 20%. That very report, which that biased blog ignored points this out.



Total generation.
  • Oil, Gas, Coal = 70%
  • Nuclear = 9%
  • Hydro = 8.4% (this is essentially fixed)
  • Wind, Solar, Biomass = 9%

If you are going to report these things, try to avoid the hyperbole and disingenuous reporting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:08 PM
 
15,087 posts, read 3,983,077 times
Reputation: 10936
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
You are part of it? How?
Oh, my entire career.......lived on about 10% or less of the energy of most Americans in the 1970's, was installing Solar and other renewables as part of my business by 1979...continued involvement in the field since then, headed to the NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) as a judge this summer to award prizes for innovation in renewable fields, have a child who we paid to go to engineering and law school who shut down those coal plants.....

I could go on, but that is some of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:16 PM
 
15,087 posts, read 3,983,077 times
Reputation: 10936
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
And 0 GW 0f base load requirements. That's equivalent to 0 nuke plants. A nuke can operate at 99% availability 24 hours/day. Renewable? They are good to hit 20%. That very report, which that biased blog ignored points this out.

If you are going to report these things, try to avoid the hyperbole and disingenuous reporting.
So the USA didn't install many GW of Solar each year in the last couple of years?

I do not remember using the world "base" in my "reporting". Nor am I reporting, but simply quoting....you know...RICK PERRY.

Granted, he's a know nothing but the numbers people at the DOE do keep track of the basics.

It's a lot of power and it's not dumped down the drain. It is USED.

If Coal is down from 53% in 1997......that's post-internet, so quite "modern times" to below 25% at last measurement, that's a vast change. Even in your "adjusted" book. MASSIVE CHANGE.

And my lights are still on.

At <3 a watt for home PV, I'm going for it....to add to the mix!

Last edited by craigiri; 06-10-2019 at 02:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:21 PM
 
44,940 posts, read 17,878,270 times
Reputation: 18851
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
So the USA didn't install many GW of Solar each year in the last couple of years?

I do not remember using the world "base" in my "reporting". Nor am I reporting, but simply quoting....you know...RICK PERRY.

Granted, he's a know nothing but the numbers people at the DOE do keep track of the basics.

It's a lot of power and it's not dumped down the drain. It is USED.

If Coal is down from 53% in 1997......that's post-internet, so quiet "modern times" to below 25% at last measurement, that's a vast change. Even in your "adjusted" book. MASSIVE CHANGE.

And my lights are still one.

At >3 a watt for home PV, I'm going for it....to add to the mix!
One more time.

Total generation.
  • Oil, Gas, Coal = 70%
  • Nuclear = 9%
  • Hydro = 8.4% (this is essentially fixed)
  • Wind, Solar, Biomass = 9%
/thread


Oh and solar? That's 3.4% of the 9%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top