Texas energy situation and green new deal

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,072
Reaction score
1,097
Points
113
This is over an hour long but the best discussion you will hear of what has happened in texas losing energy and also relating it to the green new deal. Crenshaw is really good. I go back and forth between him and Desantis for 2024.

 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
2,367
Points
113
The green new deal is an idea someone wrote down. It hasn't been implemented in any way.

Another boogieman of the right.
It's got the word green right in it, and it's associated with AOC.

Perfect for wing nut boogieman status.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
3,322
Reaction score
3,286
Points
113
LOL. What a crock of shit.

This has ZERO to do with the Green New Deal.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
2,367
Points
113
"This is over an hour long but the best discussion you will hear of what has happened in texas losing energy and also relating it to the green new deal. Crenshaw is really good. I go back and forth between him and Desantis for 2024."

What specifically makes it "the best" discussion?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
2,367
Points
113
The Green New Deal is a concept. No actual legislation has been passed.

Yet the blatant failure of Texas' grid is related to the Green New Deal?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,061
Reaction score
2,938
Points
113
The Green New Deal is a concept. No actual legislation has been passed.

Yet the blatant failure of Texas' grid is related to the Green New Deal?
The fantasy land of today's right.
 

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
10,806
Reaction score
1,522
Points
113
This is over an hour long but the best discussion you will hear of what has happened in texas losing energy and also relating it to the green new deal. Crenshaw is really good. I go back and forth between him and Desantis for 2024.

Desantis would be a marvelous choice! 👏 I believe he already said he would appoint Ted Cruz as his Secretary of Dereliction. 🇺🇸✌
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
1,941
Points
113
This is over an hour long but the best discussion you will hear of what has happened in texas losing energy and also relating it to the green new deal. Crenshaw is really good. I go back and forth between him and Desantis for 2024.

This is a good discussion and it is spot on with how renewables and fossil fuels work on the grid in ERCOT.

Wind/Solar will always be a supplemental energy. We will never be able to be 100% reliant on them, unless battery storage makes significant gains. But that has already been worked on for decades, and the development has been very slow and expensive.

If Texas was powered 100% with wind and solar over the last week, there wouldn't have been only 3 million customers without power. It would have been nearly the whole state without power.

Nuclear as the primary energy source, supplemented with wind and solar, is the cleanest and most reliable solution to this problem for everyone.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,683
Reaction score
4,763
Points
113
unless battery storage makes significant gains.
Or other types of storage, such as gravity systems, which are fine in fixed locations.

Nuclear as the primary energy source, supplemented with wind and solar, is the cleanest and most reliable solution to this problem for everyone.
Fission is not clean, as it creates waste, and it is extremely expensive. If it was the answer, we'd have lots more of these plants.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,072
Reaction score
1,097
Points
113
This is a good discussion and it is spot on with how renewables and fossil fuels work on the grid in ERCOT.

Wind/Solar will always be a supplemental energy. We will never be able to be 100% reliant on them, unless battery storage makes significant gains. But that has already been worked on for decades, and the development has been very slow and expensive.

If Texas was powered 100% with wind and solar over the last week, there wouldn't have been only 3 million customers without power. It would have been nearly the whole state without power.

Nuclear as the primary energy source, supplemented with wind and solar, is the cleanest and most reliable solution to this problem for everyone.
Glad u liked it. If you get a chance, Michael Shellenberger has given a few ted talks that you might find interesting as well. He is a big proponent of nuclear and debunks a lot of stuff out there regarding wind and solar. I will include all 3 of his talks and put the one i liked the best first. He has said some controversial things which bug some people but i think his nuclear thoughts are pretty much unchallenged.
Also will include a list of people who are part of his think tank - it is an impressive list.




 
Last edited:

Go4Broke

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
4,414
Reaction score
1,209
Points
113
Wind turbines can handle the cold just fine

Let’s get the facts straight. Every type of power plant — whether powered by coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, or wind sources — in Texas was impacted by the ice and freezing temperatures that arrived with Winter Storm Uri over the weekend. But it was natural gas — the state’s top source of electricity — that failed most significantly as wellheads and power plants froze over. Wind turbines, meanwhile, were responsible for 13 percent of the total lost electricity output, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state’s nonprofit grid operator.

Places reliant on wind energy that are no strangers to cold and ice — from Sweden to Iowa — are proof that the freezing of turbines in Texas was not inevitable. The difference: Unlike in Texas, those turbines were weatherized to operate in the cold.

Does this mean that, as wind power contributes a greater and greater share of electricity in states like Texas, all wind turbines have to be storm-proofed to avoid a future mass blackout like this week’s? This is ultimately a risk calculation that lawmakers and scientists will have to make going forward, but the scale of the damage from this blackout suggests the upfront investment would be worthwhile.

How the coldest regions keep their turbines turning

In wetter places like Scandinavia and Scotland, some turbines are filled with hot air while others have a special coating to prevent ice from forming. These winter-ready turbines cost about 5 percent more than regular turbines, and the heating process uses up some of their energy output.

Midwestern utility company MidAmerican Energy Company has shown that wind energy is highly reliable, even in harsh Iowa conditions. In 2020, 80 percent of the utility’s electricity was generated by renewable energy — the majority of which comes from its 3,300 wind turbines, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesperson for MidAmerican Energy. “This year it’s been cold, but our wind fleet continues to generate clean energy for our customers,” he said. All that’s needed is a few extra measures in the turbine design to make sure certain components don’t freeze up.

Texas has ignored previous guidance. In 2011, after a storm caused a severe blackout, ERCOT developed winterization guidelines, but they weren’t enforced. Now, facing the consequences, Gov. Abbott has called for these winterization measures to be required and for the state legislature to fund the necessary upgrades.

https://www.vox.com/2021/2/19/22290512/texas-winter-storm-wind-energy-power-outage-grid-fox-news
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
2,367
Points
113
So, in a nutshell:

— Wind turbines can handle cold just fine, even in very cold places like Sweden, if weatherized.

— Natural gas failures were far more problematic in Texas' crisis.

— Texas — being, well, Texas — ignored guidance and did not enforce winterization guidelines.

— None of this is even remotely connected to the Green New Deal.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,072
Reaction score
1,097
Points
113
Wind turbines can handle the cold just fine

Let’s get the facts straight. Every type of power plant — whether powered by coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, or wind sources — in Texas was impacted by the ice and freezing temperatures that arrived with Winter Storm Uri over the weekend. But it was natural gas — the state’s top source of electricity — that failed most significantly as wellheads and power plants froze over. Wind turbines, meanwhile, were responsible for 13 percent of the total lost electricity output, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state’s nonprofit grid operator.

Places reliant on wind energy that are no strangers to cold and ice — from Sweden to Iowa — are proof that the freezing of turbines in Texas was not inevitable. The difference: Unlike in Texas, those turbines were weatherized to operate in the cold.

Does this mean that, as wind power contributes a greater and greater share of electricity in states like Texas, all wind turbines have to be storm-proofed to avoid a future mass blackout like this week’s? This is ultimately a risk calculation that lawmakers and scientists will have to make going forward, but the scale of the damage from this blackout suggests the upfront investment would be worthwhile.

How the coldest regions keep their turbines turning

In wetter places like Scandinavia and Scotland, some turbines are filled with hot air while others have a special coating to prevent ice from forming. These winter-ready turbines cost about 5 percent more than regular turbines, and the heating process uses up some of their energy output.

Midwestern utility company MidAmerican Energy Company has shown that wind energy is highly reliable, even in harsh Iowa conditions. In 2020, 80 percent of the utility’s electricity was generated by renewable energy — the majority of which comes from its 3,300 wind turbines, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesperson for MidAmerican Energy. “This year it’s been cold, but our wind fleet continues to generate clean energy for our customers,” he said. All that’s needed is a few extra measures in the turbine design to make sure certain components don’t freeze up.

Texas has ignored previous guidance. In 2011, after a storm caused a severe blackout, ERCOT developed winterization guidelines, but they weren’t enforced. Now, facing the consequences, Gov. Abbott has called for these winterization measures to be required and for the state legislature to fund the necessary upgrades.

https://www.vox.com/2021/2/19/22290512/texas-winter-storm-wind-energy-power-outage-grid-fox-news
All very true. Shellenberger would agree with this as well.
There are other facts that make him pro nuclear and anti wind, solar.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,049
Reaction score
1,628
Points
113
See post above. Shellenberger talks about this very thing.
Thanks golf. Appreciate the link. Lots and lots of bad stuff from solar.

Tortoises being killed for solar farms. What will the Jam Jam Clan do and say?
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
1,941
Points
113
Wind turbines can handle the cold just fine

Let’s get the facts straight. Every type of power plant — whether powered by coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, or wind sources — in Texas was impacted by the ice and freezing temperatures that arrived with Winter Storm Uri over the weekend. But it was natural gas — the state’s top source of electricity — that failed most significantly as wellheads and power plants froze over. Wind turbines, meanwhile, were responsible for 13 percent of the total lost electricity output, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state’s nonprofit grid operator.

Places reliant on wind energy that are no strangers to cold and ice — from Sweden to Iowa — are proof that the freezing of turbines in Texas was not inevitable. The difference: Unlike in Texas, those turbines were weatherized to operate in the cold.

Does this mean that, as wind power contributes a greater and greater share of electricity in states like Texas, all wind turbines have to be storm-proofed to avoid a future mass blackout like this week’s? This is ultimately a risk calculation that lawmakers and scientists will have to make going forward, but the scale of the damage from this blackout suggests the upfront investment would be worthwhile.

How the coldest regions keep their turbines turning

In wetter places like Scandinavia and Scotland, some turbines are filled with hot air while others have a special coating to prevent ice from forming. These winter-ready turbines cost about 5 percent more than regular turbines, and the heating process uses up some of their energy output.

Midwestern utility company MidAmerican Energy Company has shown that wind energy is highly reliable, even in harsh Iowa conditions. In 2020, 80 percent of the utility’s electricity was generated by renewable energy — the majority of which comes from its 3,300 wind turbines, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesperson for MidAmerican Energy. “This year it’s been cold, but our wind fleet continues to generate clean energy for our customers,” he said. All that’s needed is a few extra measures in the turbine design to make sure certain components don’t freeze up.

Texas has ignored previous guidance. In 2011, after a storm caused a severe blackout, ERCOT developed winterization guidelines, but they weren’t enforced. Now, facing the consequences, Gov. Abbott has called for these winterization measures to be required and for the state legislature to fund the necessary upgrades.

https://www.vox.com/2021/2/19/22290512/texas-winter-storm-wind-energy-power-outage-grid-fox-news
Yes wind turbines can handle the cold, and yes they can be winterized. But they can still ice up, and it still takes effort to de-ice them.

They still will not produce energy if it's not windy. During our coldest and hottest temperatures, it's not typically windy. That's how the weather works.

One of the coldest days of the winter was last Sunday in Minnesota, and I posted on here that MISO was generating less than 5% of the demand from renewable energy. Wind turbines were available, it just wasn't windy.

It's not as cold this morning, and it's windy in the Dakotas/western MN, and we're still getting 84% of our energy form Coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear.

 

Go4Broke

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
4,414
Reaction score
1,209
Points
113
FactCheck.Org - The Facts on the ‘Green New Deal’

On Feb. 7, 2019, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced her Green New Deal in the House and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts introduced a companion resolution in the Senate.
The text of the legislation, which is a nonbinding resolution, lays out a broad vision for how the country might tackle climate change over the next decade, while creating high-paying jobs and protecting vulnerable communities.

Unlike a bill, this type of legislation is not presented to the president and cannot become law. Even if the Green New Deal passed in one or both chambers of Congress, separate legislation would have to be introduced to make any of the resolution’s goals a reality.

Much of the response to the proposal has focused on details that don’t appear in the resolution text. President Donald Trump, for example, suggested on Feb. 9 in a tweet that the plan would “permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military.” Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming made similar claims when she warned in a subcommittee hearing on Feb. 12 that the Green New Deal would “outlaw” plane travel, gasoline, cars and “probably the entire U.S. military.”

The Green New Deal doesn’t call for any of these prohibitions. Here we explain what the Green New Deal includes — and doesn’t — and why there is confusion over some of the content.

Goals of the Legislation

There are five goals, which the resolution says should be accomplished in a 10-year mobilization effort:

  • Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers
  • Create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States
  • Invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century
  • Secure for all people of the United States for generations to come: clean air and water; climate and community resiliency; healthy food; access to nature; and a sustainable environment
  • Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (“frontline and vulnerable communities”)
The primary climate change goal is to reach net-zero greenhouse emissions in a decade. “Net-zero” means that after tallying up all the greenhouse gases that are released and subtracting those that are sequestered, or removed, there is no net addition to the atmosphere. The goal, then, is slightly less ambitious than calling for no greenhouse gas emissions at all. The resolution goes on to propose additional aims and projects to accomplish these overarching goals, but generally does not stipulate how the country will reach them. The resolution is also silent on cost and funding mechanisms.

We’ll go through some of the specific topics that have received the most attention.

Electricity

One of the most ambitious and prominent goals of the Green New Deal is to meet “100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
The resolution doesn’t offer any more details, other than to say that this would include “dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources” and “deploying new capacity.”

One point of confusion has been what sorts of energy sources the Green New Deal would allow for electricity generation. Ocasio-Cortez’s office released an FAQ document that specifically said that new nuclear plants would not be permitted, although existing nuclear plants could stay. And in response to a question about carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS, the fact sheet read, “We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.” But the text of the resolution does not mention nuclear power or carbon capture, and as written, does not prohibit either method of generation.

Transportation

If the country wants to reach net-zero emissions in a decade, one of the most important areas in which emissions reductions need to occur is transportation.
Transportation recently surpassed power generation as the sector with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, and is responsible for about 28 percent of the U.S. total.

As with electricity generation, the text of the resolution that discusses transportation is open-ended.
The Green New Deal requires “overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in— (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and (iii) high-speed rail.”

Some people, including the president, have said that the Green New Deal gets rid of cars or air travel. And as we’ve detailed elsewhere, some popular memes online have even suggested that the plan advocates building “trains over the oceans.” The resolution does not call for that. It only states that transportation emissions should be reduced “as much as is technically feasible,” and suggests three ways of reaching that goal, including high-speed rail and zero-emission vehicles, which would include electric cars. There is no mention of air travel.

But air travel was mentioned in various FAQ materials produced by Ocasio-Cortez’s office.
Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, said in a phone interview that any such interpretation of the fact sheets was not intended. “Obviously, no, we’re not trying to ban air travel,” he said.

Agriculture

A third major industry the Green New Deal targets is agriculture.
About 9 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gases stem from agricultural activities, including the release of nitrous oxide from soil and methane from livestock.

Once again, the agriculture section of the resolution is vague, stating only that one of the goals of the Green New Deal is “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including— (i) by supporting family farming; (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

Although the resolution doesn’t say anything about cows, the animal is frequently mentioned by critics of the Green New Deal. Cows were discussed in two FAQ documents, which likely explains the preoccupation. As mentioned earlier, the fact sheet sent to NPR reads, “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”

Economic Security

Along with its environmental goals, the Green New Deal aims to provide economic security for Americans.
One of the proposal’s key goals is to “create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.” The plan also guarantees “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

Both FAQ sheets — the version sent to NPR and the one posted to Ocasio-Cortez’s website — however, go further, and include a provision guaranteeing economic security to “all who are unable or unwilling to work. There is nothing in the Green New Deal about providing for people who are “unwilling to work,” but the inclusion in the FAQ materials has proven to be one of the most contentious aspects of the Green New Deal’s rollout.

On Feb. 9, after a Washington Post reporter noticed the disconnect, Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter, noting that there were various versions of the Green New Deal and the FAQs. Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, also replied, saying that “an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake.” Whether done accidentally or not, much of the confusion about what the resolution contains originates from discrepancies between the official resolution and documents that Ocasio-Cortez’s office distributed to news outlets and posted on her website, not because of “doctored” copies.

Military

The president’s Feb. 9 tweet also suggested that the Green New Deal would “permanently eliminate” the military.
But the resolution does not mention the military at all, and neither do any of the FAQ materials Ocasio-Cortez’s office released or posted. Where did the idea come from? When we contacted the White House, the press office did not provide us with an on-the-record explanation.

But one possibility is a separate proposal by the Green Party of the United States. The party’s policy also goes by the name “Green New Deal” and includes cutting military spending “by at least half” and closing military bases overseas, although it does not call for a complete end to the military.
Despite some similarities, the two plans are distinct and should not be conflated.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
2,367
Points
113
Yes wind turbines can handle the cold, and yes they can be winterized. But they can still ice up, and it still takes effort to de-ice them.

They still will not produce energy if it's not windy. During our coldest and hottest temperatures, it's not typically windy. That's how the weather works.

The U.S. power grid consists of a huge number of interconnected transmission lines that connect a variety of generation sources to loads. The wind does not always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, which creates additional variability (due to the changing output of wind and solar) and uncertainty (due to the inability to perfectly forecast wind or solar output).

But power grid operators have always had to deal with variability. Other forms of power generation, including traditional thermal generation, can unexpectedly trip off-line without notice; all forms of power generation may sometimes not operate when called upon. There is also uncertainty inherent in the system due to ever-changing load (energy demand) that cannot be predicted perfectly, which power grid operators have always had to manage.

Grid operators use the interconnected power system to access other forms of generation when contingencies occur and continually turn generators on and off when needed to meet the overall grid demand.

Adding variable renewable power to the grid does not inherently change how this process of balancing electricity supply and demand works. Studies have shown that the grid can accommodate large penetrations of variable renewable power without sacrificing reliability, and without the need for "backup" generation.

For more information, see the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Western Wind and Solar Integration Study and Eastern Renewable Generation Integration Study.

 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
1,941
Points
113
The U.S. power grid consists of a huge number of interconnected transmission lines that connect a variety of generation sources to loads. The wind does not always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, which creates additional variability (due to the changing output of wind and solar) and uncertainty (due to the inability to perfectly forecast wind or solar output).

But power grid operators have always had to deal with variability. Other forms of power generation, including traditional thermal generation, can unexpectedly trip off-line without notice; all forms of power generation may sometimes not operate when called upon. There is also uncertainty inherent in the system due to ever-changing load (energy demand) that cannot be predicted perfectly, which power grid operators have always had to manage.

Grid operators use the interconnected power system to access other forms of generation when contingencies occur and continually turn generators on and off when needed to meet the overall grid demand.

Adding variable renewable power to the grid does not inherently change how this process of balancing electricity supply and demand works. Studies have shown that the grid can accommodate large penetrations of variable renewable power without sacrificing reliability, and without the need for "backup" generation.

For more information, see the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Western Wind and Solar Integration Study and Eastern Renewable Generation Integration Study.

Yes, and I linked MISO in the post I responded to. You are going to have times where wind output is very low across the entire electrical grid. Those are typically during the hottest and coldest times of the year. They balance this by using coal/natural gas/nuclear.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
1,941
Points
113
Glad u liked it. If you get a chance, Michael Shellenberger has given a few ted talks that you might find interesting as well. He is a big proponent of nuclear and debunks a lot of stuff out there regarding wind and solar. I will include all 3 of his talks and put the one i liked the best first. He has said some controversial things which bug some people but i think his nuclear thoughts are pretty much unchallenged.
Also will include a list of people who are part of his think tank - it is an impressive list.




These are very good. Thanks for posting.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,683
Reaction score
4,763
Points
113
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
What is your point?

You've taken every chance to try to attack wind turbines. Are you willing to take an actual stance? Should wind turbines be banned from public utilities? Or what?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
2,367
Points
113
What is your point?

You've taken every chance to try to attack wind turbines. Are you willing to take an actual stance? Should wind turbines be banned from public utilities? Or what?
I think he's worried that if the wind isn't blowing there will be no power.

I posted an article that deals with how power grids mitigate that specific issue, but he must not get it.

Maybe I'm missing something: has anyone proposed wind power, by itself, supplying 100% of our needs, at all times? If so, I must have missed it.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
1,941
Points
113
I think he's worried that if the wind isn't blowing there will be no power.

I posted an article that deals with how power grids mitigate that specific issue, but he must not get it.

Maybe I'm missing something: has anyone proposed wind power, by itself, supplying 100% of our needs, at all times? If so, I must have missed it.
The push is to be 100% carbon free. You cannot get 100% of your energy from wind/solar.

So where are you going to get the rest of your carbon free energy from to prevent outages in the coldest and hottest times of the year?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
2,367
Points
113
The push is to be 100% carbon free. You cannot get 100% of your energy from wind/solar.

So where are you going to get the rest of your carbon free energy from to prevent outages in the coldest and hottest times of the year?
I'm not sure who you're sourcing when you say the bolded.

Whether or not we can or can't get to 100% carbon free is a separate debate from saying wind turbines are bad because sometimes the wind doesn't blow.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
1,941
Points
113
I'm not sure who you're sourcing when you say the bolded.

Whether or not we can or can't get to 100% carbon free is a separate debate from saying wind turbines are bad because sometimes the wind doesn't blow.
Our own governor just announced he's speeding this up by a decade.


It's not a separate debate because they all work together to provide us electricity. I also never said wind turbines are bad. In the other thread I said wind turbines are great in the spring/fall when demand is lower and it's the windiest times of the year. They can provide a large portion of the electricity under those conditions,

But wind will never be a significant help in the extreme cold and heat. It's typically not windy under those conditions, that's just how the weather works. So where are you going to get your carbon free electricity in those conditions?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,683
Reaction score
4,763
Points
113
The push is to be 100% carbon free. You cannot get 100% of your energy from wind/solar.

So where are you going to get the rest of your carbon free energy from to prevent outages in the coldest and hottest times of the year?
The actual correct statement is "you cannot get 100% of your energy from wind/solar, without storage"

It's a known thing, it's being worked on.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,061
Reaction score
2,938
Points
113
Why are the feds bailing out Texas from a situation they created entirely on their own thru bad decisions. This is bs.
 
Top Bottom