GCR: Blowing away dirty energy: Wind to pass hydro as top renewable in 2019
- Thread starter GRA
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Well yeah.
Wind turbines can be put in lots of locations, out in the middle of no where, off the coasts and over water if we can beat the nimbys into submission.
All the hydro electric we have now is likely all we are going to ever have.
Wind turbines can be put in lots of locations, out in the middle of no where, off the coasts and over water if we can beat the nimbys into submission.
All the hydro electric we have now is likely all we are going to ever have.
webeleafowners
Well-known member
Oilpan4 said:
Mmm. Nope. Still expanding in BC and Quebec and to a lesser extent in other provinces. Mostly for export.
Norway has vast untapped hydro resources. it is just generally true that each region has its own unique mix of sustainable natural resources. It is just our good fortune that areas with relatively poor sunshine have more water. This is also why we share.webeleafowners said:
paulgipe
Well-known member
Guy,
The author mixes Gigawatts and "generation" in the same piece without explanation. This is a deadly confusing mix to the unwary. Gigawatts is power. Generation is in kWh or in this case TWh. He should have stuck with generation. That was the point of the story. When he inserts GW he needs to clarify that the capacity factor of wind is less than that of hydro. Now it wouldn't surprise me that EIA screwed up the press release. I take all info from the EIA with a grain of salt.
Paul
The author mixes Gigawatts and "generation" in the same piece without explanation. This is a deadly confusing mix to the unwary. Gigawatts is power. Generation is in kWh or in this case TWh. He should have stuck with generation. That was the point of the story. When he inserts GW he needs to clarify that the capacity factor of wind is less than that of hydro. Now it wouldn't surprise me that EIA screwed up the press release. I take all info from the EIA with a grain of salt.
Paul
GRA
Well-known member
Paul, I was re-reading that quote and just noticed that (been under the weather), so thanks for pointing it out. I should have seen it and emphasized the difference in the original post. Here's what the EIA report itself says (Pages 15-16), which does make the distinction:paulgipe said:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf
webeleafowners
Well-known member
Yes but Canada’s power exports are part of the US power mix.
As an architect myself I can say that a lot is being done in the field of design of buildings and structures, especially in Europe and in the US. I'm talking about things like LEED and BREEAM. In some countries, it is no longer possible to build a building without a certificate. And I think that's reasonable almost always: sustainable technologies increase asset value by 7% on average versus conventional buildings.
"Solar is growing even faster, expected to rise 29 percent by 2020. In 2017 it accounted for only 1.3 percent of total electricity generation, which is expected to reach about 1.7 percent in that time frame." Well..... :roll:
On the one hand, clean and renewable energy is a great idea. Especially in places where they can be used effectively. BUT I do not like the way that the industry is becoming increasingly commercial, which often goes hand in hand with the destruction of the environment and big corporations ravaging the planet for resources. Anything that has any commercial value and marketing potential is taken by hundreds of people to multiply it and gain their riches on it, regardless of the impacts in the long-run. Which is what concerns me a bit about booming solar industry as well. If you buy some real estate in France, somewhere on the Cote d'azur, where the sun shines all year round that seems like a good idea. But I highly doubt the rationality of using solar panels for countries like the UK or Norway. But I highly doubt the rationality of using solar panels for countries like the UK or Norway. But they do! That’s like having wind turbines in places where there is almost no wind, and having a system for collecting rainwater in the desert. Also with solar installed on your house, roof replacement costs are increased dramatically. What about wind: people often object to proposals to build wind farms because of perceived negative impacts on their lifestyle. And it is true that some people are adversely affected by the infra sound or vibration experienced in the vicinity of wind turbines. It makes a lot of noise pollution and the source of green energy is ironically very dangerous for flying birds.
Like this article:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies
"Solar is growing even faster, expected to rise 29 percent by 2020. In 2017 it accounted for only 1.3 percent of total electricity generation, which is expected to reach about 1.7 percent in that time frame." Well..... :roll:
On the one hand, clean and renewable energy is a great idea. Especially in places where they can be used effectively. BUT I do not like the way that the industry is becoming increasingly commercial, which often goes hand in hand with the destruction of the environment and big corporations ravaging the planet for resources. Anything that has any commercial value and marketing potential is taken by hundreds of people to multiply it and gain their riches on it, regardless of the impacts in the long-run. Which is what concerns me a bit about booming solar industry as well. If you buy some real estate in France, somewhere on the Cote d'azur, where the sun shines all year round that seems like a good idea. But I highly doubt the rationality of using solar panels for countries like the UK or Norway. But I highly doubt the rationality of using solar panels for countries like the UK or Norway. But they do! That’s like having wind turbines in places where there is almost no wind, and having a system for collecting rainwater in the desert. Also with solar installed on your house, roof replacement costs are increased dramatically. What about wind: people often object to proposals to build wind farms because of perceived negative impacts on their lifestyle. And it is true that some people are adversely affected by the infra sound or vibration experienced in the vicinity of wind turbines. It makes a lot of noise pollution and the source of green energy is ironically very dangerous for flying birds.
Like this article:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies
GRA
Well-known member
That's a good article (or maybe I think so because it happens to agree with so much of my own viewpoint), and similar points and/or conclusions can be found in Mackay (https://www.withouthotair.com/), Smil and others who've done the math.
Nubo
Well-known member
Oilpan4 said:
And worse, increasing temperatures and loss of snow pack may mean less generation from existing facilities as time goes by.
The Western US is going to have to start building vast reservoirs, to deal with the twin disasters of flooding and drought. They should build in pumped hydroelectric storage and production.
iPlug
Well-known member
- Google and DeepMind have started testing machine learning on Google's own wind turbines, which are part of the company's renewable energy projects. Beginning last year, they fed weather forecasts and existing turbine data into DeepMind's machine learning platform, which churned out wind power predictions 36 hours ahead of actual power generation. Google could then make supply commitments to power grids a full day before delivery. That predictability makes it easier and more appealing for energy grids to depend on wind power, and as a result, it boosted the value of Google's wind energy by roughly 20 percent.
https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/26/google-machine-learning-wind-power/
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
matmuh said:
This is exactly my concern with the "community solar farms" that seem to be going in across New York State. Instead of putting panels on existing rooftops, they are clearing forested land and putting up panels. Then they have the audacity to call it "green". Right.
Here is an extreme example in Virginia:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ma...ect-generates-fury-from-neighbors-in-virginia
GetOffYourGas said:
The one local example I've seen was built in what had been a fallow farm field, of which we have many here. Just forbidding the clearing of forests to construct such local solar projects should be enough...
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
Reclaiming farmland isn’t as bad, but better to leave the land and let nature return it to its natural state.
But in Central NY, there are several examples of clearing forest for the specific reason of installing solar panels
But in Central NY, there are several examples of clearing forest for the specific reason of installing solar panels
GetOffYourGas said:
That, sadly, is a perfect example of what's wrong with leaving Green projects to for-profit industries.
GRA
Well-known member
I think it's an inevitable if unfortunate cost of AE moving from the fringe to the mainstream. When I was in the off-grid AE business it was a small community of peoplewho knew each other, doing it because they thought it was important, and no one was doing it to make a quick buck. Now that it's big business, the salescritters have moved in. Sad, but I believe it's still preferable to the alternative, which is to keep things restricted to the pure of heart fringe.LeftieBiker said:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Any reason not to buy approved/used 62kwh Tekna (UK)?
- Latest: Martin Hogbin
-
-
