Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Proof that wind and solar are disasters


docyabut2

Recommended Posts

Proof that wind and solar are disasters, and not the energy America really needs

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@docyabut2 You have posted a headline but no article or link.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Thank you. I should have guessed that it was Fox.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, they described burning coal as "innovative". Fox stuck on "fire" as a big new technology. Stone Age thinking.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2024 at 12:56 AM, Doc Socks Junior said:

Lol, they described burning coal as "innovative". Fox stuck on "fire" as a big new technology. Stone Age thinking.

Have they decided yet whether they want fire that can be fitted nasally?

Meanwhile, I hear plans to invent the wheel have hit a major snag - no-one can agree which colour it should be.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If wind and solar are such failures, then it becomes necessary to explain why major companies (Nexterra, Florida Heat and Light, Public Service of Oklahoma, Southwest Electric Power, etc.) are investing billions in them.  Wind Catcher is Oklahoma's largest wind farm (We have over 30 of them.) and produces 2GW of power (enough to supply 1.1 million customers).  At a cost of $4.5 billion, it is the largest in the US and second largest in the world.  It has 800 turbines (at any average cost of $3 million each).  Rotor diameter is 100m with blades 48.7m long.  Public Service of Oklahoma (30%) and Southwest Electric Power (70%) own the completed wind farm.  It will produce savings of $5 billion to customers over a 25-year period.

https://www.power-technology.com/projects/wind-catcher-wind-farm-oklahoma/?cf-view

 

Oklahoma is number two among the states in wind power production.  We power 2,3 million homes with 3736 wind turbines.

https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2018/09/06/oklahoma-wind-farms-mapped/

 

As of December 2023, Oklahoma has 181MW of installed solar farms, enough to power 21,383 homes).  1166 MW will be installed over the next five years.  Eventually we expect 11,012 installations.

https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/oklahoma-solar

 

We are not talking backyard projects here.  These are major companies.  And this data is for Oklahoma only.

Fox News is flat-out lying to its listeners.

Doug

 

 

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two most natural forces on the planet since time immemorial are disasters.

Makes perfect sense.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

If wind and solar are such failures, then it becomes necessary to explain why major companies (Nexterra, Florida Heat and Light, Public Service of Oklahoma, Southwest Electric Power, etc.) are investing billions in them.  Wind Catcher is Oklahoma's largest wind farm (We have over 30 of them.) and produces 2GW of power (enough to supply 1.1 million customers).  At a cost of $4.5 billion, it is the largest in the US and second largest in the world.  It has 800 turbines (at any average cost of $3 million each).  Rotor diameter is 100m with blades 48.7m long.  Public Service of Oklahoma (30%) and Southwest Electric Power (70%) own the completed wind farm.  It will produce savings of $5 billion to customers over a 25-year period.

https://www.power-technology.com/projects/wind-catcher-wind-farm-oklahoma/?cf-view

 

Oklahoma is number two among the states in wind power production.  We power 2,3 million homes with 3736 wind turbines.

https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2018/09/06/oklahoma-wind-farms-mapped/

 

As of December 2023, Oklahoma has 181MW of installed solar farms, enough to power 21,383 homes).  1166 MW will be installed over the next five years.  Eventually we expect 11,012 installations.

https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/oklahoma-solar

 

We are not talking backyard projects here.  These are major companies.  And this data is for Oklahoma only.

Fox News is flat-out lying to its listeners.

Doug

 

 

And some of those geniuses will believe it unfortunately.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is, as usual, in the details.  Wind and solar are fine for specific locations and small energy users, like most homes.  They are all but useless for major energy users, like industry.  While I have little hope for wind power, solar technology does seem to be making good on its power production lifetime vs power required to create.  The future will likely be a mix of solar and nuclear, the former mostly for smaller consumers and the latter for stronger.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Essan said:

Have they decided yet whether they want fire that can be fitted nasally?

Meanwhile, I hear plans to invent the wheel have hit a major snag - no-one can agree which colour it should be.

These kids using their wheels is a major disaster. Instead of dragging their monolithic boulders over wet sand, like us, they're just rolling them over all terrains?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

The devil is, as usual, in the details.  Wind and solar are fine for specific locations and small energy users, like most homes.  They are all but useless for major energy users, like industry.  While I have little hope for wind power, solar technology does seem to be making good on its power production lifetime vs power required to create.  The future will likely be a mix of solar and nuclear, the former mostly for smaller consumers and the latter for stronger.

A wind farm that can supply over a million homes can't supply industry?  An electron is an electron.  Makes no difference where it came from.  Whose Cool-aid have you been drinking?

 

Solar is still in its infancy.  It just became profitable a couple years ago.  I expect to see a lot more development.  One day it may replace wind.  We'll have to wait and see.

 

Nuclear may not be a solution.  Residual heat is a likely source of global warming in addition to CO2 pollution.  Nuclear is as bad about residual heat as any form of combustion energy.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They require significant land use, threatening wildlife and huge swaths of nature. Finally, they're inherently unreliable, since the wind isn't always blowing, nor the sun always shining. As many parts of the U.S. are learning, more wind and solar power means more blackouts.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

They require significant land use, threatening wildlife and huge swaths of nature. Finally, they're inherently unreliable, since the wind isn't always blowing, nor the sun always shining. As many parts of the U.S. are learning, more wind and solar power means more blackouts.

No sorry, not necessarily the case.  We don't have to replace all energy, just add capacity with alternative forms.  This whole attitude of its the old way or no  way just  eliminates the chance for progress or development.  

Docy, don't send anybody any money.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

They require significant land use, threatening wildlife and huge swaths of nature. Finally, they're inherently unreliable, since the wind isn't always blowing, nor the sun always shining. As many parts of the U.S. are learning, more wind and solar power means more blackouts.

Wind Catcher uses 2% of the land within the wind farm for power generation, roads, powerlines, towers, etc..  The other 98% is used for agricultural purposes, mainly grazing.

In 2021 Texas suffered severe winter storms.  Low temperatures caused lubricating oil in gas generators to gel, depriving the generators of needed lubrication.  20% of them failed.  Ignorant Abbott tried to blame the failure on wind, but it was the wind turbines that kept running, providing Texas' major source of power during the freeze.

It is the grid operators who determine how much of what kind of energy will be generated.  They try to keep costs low, so favor wind.  But wind cannot readily be turned on or off.  It takes a few minutes, during which time the grid may be short of power.  To keep this from being a problem, gas generators are kept in stand-by mode, ready to take over at the flip of a switch.  Water reserves are used last to keep from using them up so they will be available when needed.

During a heat dome event, winds may be light over wide areas, like a whole state.  In that event, power needed for an Oklahoma heat wave can be imported from Wyoming or Iowa by flipping switches (It's done automatically by computer.).  Power needed for Texas' heat wave last summer could not be imported from outside the state because Texas is not connected to the other grids.  In order to keep the Federal government from telling Texas it has to upgrade its system, Texas opted to cut itself off from other grids.  Now, every time there is a shortage of power in Texas, no power is available from elsewhere.  It's a self-inflicted wound.

Doug

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put, solid state will beat moving parts everytime in maintenance and longevity of use.  Wind is just never going to be able to keep up with solar in the long run, even putting aside the cost of the initial investment (meaning the energy and resources put into the creation of a power source vs the amount of energy it returns over it's lifetime).  Wind power is effective for individual power needs, but it is unlikely to ever be a major player.

Solar has passed the infancy stage and entered the toddler phase.  Maybe.  It may have also entered the young adult phase, meaning the future potential is cut a bit shorter.  Solar tech today is cheaper than it was 5 years ago, and it has improved in efficiency, but as to whether it can continue to do so is a matter of debate.  It has been years since I looked into the current science of it, so I can't really say more than that.  Regardless, in terms of convenience, low maintenance, and low complexity (both technological and social), solar beats the other alternative energies out of the water.  Most homes will never have a problem with production or use with solar.

But talking about energy cannot be done with acknowledging the consumers of energy.  Solar is fine for low end energy users, because the amount of reliability needed can easily be met by a bank of batteries.  The sun may not always shine and the wind may not always blow, but it does enough as long as you can store it.  But energy storage isn't something that is easily scalable.  The energy needs of a factory, let alone an industry, would make energy storage both expensive and unlikely to be efficient.  The peaks and valleys of industry energy use are ridiculously beyond any system designed for low end users.

Nuclear power is the easy solution.  The amount of energy production beggars anything all the alternative sources put together can produce.  The amount of locations where it can be used are nowhere near as limited.  It is the only green energy to have a base load, which by itself makes it superior to the others.  It is infinitely safer, cheaper, efficient, and flexible.  There is no contest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

Most homes will never have a problem with production or use with solar.

You have to use something else at night.  Maybe we could develop a world-wide grid so power could be brought from China?

Or maybe, we'll have to use wind.  The wind is always blowing somewhere, usually within the same wind farm.  Simply throw some switches and import it from six states away on those few occasions when it isn't blowing at your location.

If it turns out that residual heat is a major problem in global warming, then nuclear will have to be limited or eliminated.  It contributes residual heat in a major way.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

You have to use something else at night.  Maybe we could develop a world-wide grid so power could be brought from China?

Or maybe, we'll have to use wind.  The wind is always blowing somewhere, usually within the same wind farm.  Simply throw some switches and import it from six states away on those few occasions when it isn't blowing at your location.

You use batteries.  Much cheaper than trucking in energy from some other part of the world.
 

Quote

 

If it turns out that residual heat is a major problem in global warming, then nuclear will have to be limited or eliminated.  It contributes residual heat in a major way.

Doug

 

I'm only aware of one publication that claims it is, so I am going to assign it it a low probability.  Additionally, I will say that the amount of residual heat from one nuclear kW-h is probably much, much, lower than that of a solar kW-h, but i will acknowledge that I haven't done any recent calculations on this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Simply put, solid state will beat moving parts everytime in maintenance and longevity of use.  Wind is just never going to be able to keep up with solar in the long run, even putting aside the cost of the initial investment (meaning the energy and resources put into the creation of a power source vs the amount of energy it returns over it's lifetime).  Wind power is effective for individual power needs, but it is unlikely to ever be a major player.

Solar has passed the infancy stage and entered the toddler phase.  Maybe.  It may have also entered the young adult phase, meaning the future potential is cut a bit shorter.  Solar tech today is cheaper than it was 5 years ago, and it has improved in efficiency, but as to whether it can continue to do so is a matter of debate.  It has been years since I looked into the current science of it, so I can't really say more than that.  Regardless, in terms of convenience, low maintenance, and low complexity (both technological and social), solar beats the other alternative energies out of the water.  Most homes will never have a problem with production or use with solar.

But talking about energy cannot be done with acknowledging the consumers of energy.  Solar is fine for low end energy users, because the amount of reliability needed can easily be met by a bank of batteries.  The sun may not always shine and the wind may not always blow, but it does enough as long as you can store it.  But energy storage isn't something that is easily scalable.  The energy needs of a factory, let alone an industry, would make energy storage both expensive and unlikely to be efficient.  The peaks and valleys of industry energy use are ridiculously beyond any system designed for low end users.

Nuclear power is the easy solution.  The amount of energy production beggars anything all the alternative sources put together can produce.  The amount of locations where it can be used are nowhere near as limited.  It is the only green energy to have a base load, which by itself makes it superior to the others.  It is infinitely safer, cheaper, efficient, and flexible.  There is no contest.

Apart from energy efficiency concerns, there is a liberating aspect to alternative power.  Most people are irrevocably tied to a megalithic energy company that decides what is best for itself.  With solar, wind, and a battery backup an individual can have some semblance of energy independence.  That in itself seem valuable.

Judging by prepper and survival sites, a lot of survivalists are also hawking solar cells and batteries. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely.  There is a certain amount of pride and confidence that comes from not being dependent on "the grid".  Creating your own power is not too different (emotionally) from being able to start a fire without matches.  There's a curious yet elating primal freedom attached to it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

You use batteries.  Much cheaper than trucking in energy from some other part of the world.

Take some mighty big batteries to power an entire city, even at night.

 

46 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

I'm only aware of one publication that claims it is, so I am going to assign it it a low probability.  Additionally, I will say that the amount of residual heat from one nuclear kW-h is probably much, much, lower than that of a solar kW-h, but i will acknowledge that I haven't done any recent calculations on this.

I have seen two or three papers on it.  Enough to convince me that more research is needed.

Solar does not contribute to residual heat because the energy was already present when it was converted to electricity; albeit, it may only have been here a few seconds.

Things that create heat that wasn't currently present are the problem.  The CO2 producers also produce heat, so the fossil fuel industry isn't getting off the hook.  Geothermal is debatable:  if the energy is coming from deep underground, it is probably a bad idea, but if it is something like a heat pump being used to heat a private home, then it would be helpful.  Hope I said that in an understandable way.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Judging by prepper and survival sites, a lot of survivalists are also hawking solar cells and batteries. 

Funny how those prepper/survivalists always start with something manufactured.

Doug

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug1066 said:

Take some mighty big batteries to power an entire city, even at night.

That's why I am saying that solar will never be used by anything other than low end users.  If you require other systems to supplement it, be it batteries or importing energy, it affects the cost of that kWh.

Quote

 

I have seen two or three papers on it.  Enough to convince me that more research is needed.

Solar does not contribute to residual heat because the energy was already present when it was converted to electricity; albeit, it may only have been here a few seconds.

Things that create heat that wasn't currently present are the problem.  The CO2 producers also produce heat, so the fossil fuel industry isn't getting off the hook.  Geothermal is debatable:  if the energy is coming from deep underground, it is probably a bad idea, but if it is something like a heat pump being used to heat a private home, then it would be helpful.  Hope I said that in an understandable way.

Doug

 

I am including the energy required to create something as well.  Solar cells do not appear out of nowhere.  There is a process that creates them, and this process makes use of energy (and, i suppose, heat, but I haven't seen anything to indicate it is worth including as a factor).  Therefore, calculating the cost of any kWh requires knowing the amount of energy to produce it (a given generator cell of energy) and the amount of kWh it will create throughout its lifetime.  I am not convinced wind power will ever be in the black.  Solar power...is getting there.  Nuclear power is there, with a large margin to spare.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot get a baseload of energy requirements from.wind and solar.

As for the segment about every bit helps... the energy use and carbon from gas and oil is miniscule in comparison to industry in India and China and even they don't compete with planet earth. 

As for human induced climate change, purrrlease!!! No. Nonsense. I've been waiting for sea levels to rise for about 30 years. Nothing has changed. We were told.a 1.5C change would heat the oceans. This year the sea of the Netherlands is about 3.5C warmer than usual and still no sea level rise, no change in weather....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2024 at 4:06 AM, aquatus1 said:

The devil is, as usual, in the details.  Wind and solar are fine for specific locations and small energy users, like most homes.  They are all but useless for major energy users, like industry.  While I have little hope for wind power, solar technology does seem to be making good on its power production lifetime vs power required to create.  The future will likely be a mix of solar and nuclear, the former mostly for smaller consumers and the latter for stronger.

Yep Australia just today said that we are going to build more solar panels in our country using what is left of our dwindling resources.

I won't post the video, since we are not allowed to post offensive material here.

Australia achieving Net Zero would have to, (this is battery backup only, based on actual data from the Financial Review) we would have to pay 7 trillion every decade in Australia for about two weeks of power from solar/wind etc.

Or almost a trillion a year, (our GDP is about 1.3 trillion annually) or we couldn't pay the interest in about 20 years and be bankrupt in 30.

But with the power blackouts and gas shortages l figure that the balance of power will shift and this stupidity will end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.