Jump to content

Dumb Energy


MixtyMotions

Recommended Posts

Dumb article.

(Full disclosure:  I'm not a huge proponent of renewable energies on a fiscal basis at current costs, but the article doesn't even mention energy storage, which is an alternative to existing plants to cover those apparent surprise times when "the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First two sentences from first link--

 

Wind and solar electricity are renewable energy.  How nice to pluck energy out of the air and the sky.

It's a scam.  Big money men and screwball dreamers, otherwise called environmentalists, are behind the scam.

 
-- told me all I need to know. No need to read any further.
 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dumb article.
(Full disclosure:  I'm not a huge proponent of renewable energies on a fiscal basis at current costs, but the article doesn't even mention energy storage, which is an alternative to existing plants to cover those apparent surprise times when "the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow".)
The costs associated with existing energy infrastructure go far beyond the fiscal realm. Not only that, but the fiscal and non fiscal (and non-fiscal) opportunity cost of not being proactive in terms of reform will manifest itself in an ugly way. It will just be decades down the road.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Dumb article.

(Full disclosure:  I'm not a huge proponent of renewable energies on a fiscal basis at current costs, but the article doesn't even mention energy storage, which is an alternative to existing plants to cover those apparent surprise times when "the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow".)

The argument for current economics and future economics are clearly different.  Nobody with sense precludes the possibility that technological advancements can/will change the economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

The argument for current economics and future economics are clearly different.  Nobody with sense precludes the possibility that technological advancements can/will change the economics.

Nobody with sense accepts that article as an objective read on the issues at hand.  It's a silly, old-school-energy take on the subject.

 

 

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

First two sentences from first link--

 

Wind and solar electricity are renewable energy.  How nice to pluck energy out of the air and the sky.

It's a scam.  Big money men and screwball dreamers, otherwise called environmentalists, are behind the scam.

 
-- told me all I need to know. No need to read any further.
 

I stopped when I saw the site was something out of a 1997 Altavista catalog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

Drove from DFW to New Mexico a couple of months ago. A lot of folks out there got scammed, cause those wind turbines are fucking everywhere.

Seriously.  These sorts or arguments were interesting 20 years ago.  Now, we are just past it.  It's like arguing if faster than sound travel is possible.

ERCOTFuelMix2017.png

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/texas-got-18-percent-of-its-energy-from-wind-and-solar-last-year/

 

And it's only getting bigger.  2018-2019 will see another 40% bump in wind capacity.  

 

ERCOT_Wind_IQ_December2017.png

 

On a windy day in December, 45% of our electricity was wind.  That is bad ass.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/texas-sets-new-all-time-wind-energy-record/

13.9 gigawatts.  Great Scott!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

First two sentences from first link--

 

Wind and solar electricity are renewable energy.  How nice to pluck energy out of the air and the sky.

It's a scam.  Big money men and screwball dreamers, otherwise called environmentalists, are behind the scam.

 
-- told me all I need to know. No need to read any further.
 

Yeah, the article was dripping with intellectual dishonesty. I made it to the paragraph about smart grid which was basically, "smart grid is supposed to be 'smart' hur dur, yeah right." Smart grid tech is very promising and I've seen it work fairly well despite the author's skepticism. There are legitimate concerns but this guy isn't really interested in addressing them. Its basically an old man yelling at the sky type rant.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

How nice to pluck energy out of the air and the sky.

Next thing you'll try to sell me is a boat that can travel the oceans using nothing but wind. What happens when the wind is blowing the other way?  F'n libtard environmental wackos.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

My house came with solar panels.  And yes, I agree, solar panels are super dumb, because I used to love spending $250/month on electricity in the never ending Austin summer.  Now I only spend $20-30/month in the summer.  That's just dumb.

BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN ITS CLOUDY OR NIGHT-NIGHT TIME?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

44 minutes ago, F250 said:

Yeah, the article was dripping with intellectual dishonesty. I made it to the paragraph about smart grid which was basically, "smart grid is supposed to be 'smart' hur dur, yeah right." Smart grid tech is very promising and I've seen it work fairly well despite the author's skepticism. There are legitimate concerns but this guy isn't really interested in addressing them. Its basically an old man yelling at the sky type rant.

 

 

Its not just that. In the very first paragraph, the snark is already starting, then its straight to the insults. Why should I read something that is insulting from the get go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people buying into renewables are the same rubes that fell for the horseless carriage scam. We told them they’d be fucked when they wanted to go somewhere that didn’t have brick roads or gasoline fill up stations. All they could come back with was bullshit about infrastructure and technology improvements. 

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

1 hour ago, kibbles said:

As someone who does solar projects for money, I enjoy the rich, dumb people I have to talk to who think solar "won't work"

Basically everyone I work with. That giant ball of incandescent gas radiating energy on us all the time cannot POSSIBLY be used in a sustainable way! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2018 at 12:24 PM, gmr548 said:

The costs associated with existing energy infrastructure go far beyond the fiscal realm. Not only that, but the fiscal and non fiscal (and non-fiscal) opportunity cost of not being proactive in terms of reform will manifest itself in an ugly way. It will just be decades down the road.

Ugly is a harsh word.  Some of them might clean up nicely. 

Spoiler

frd-ds-00231r_wide-13368d8ab6a45aae97171

 

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2018 at 1:13 PM, MixtyMotions said:

The Interstate system was viewed by many as a giant waste of money at the time it was built.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drove from DFW to New Mexico a couple of months ago. A lot of folks out there got scammed, cause those wind turbines are fucking everywhere.
I used to work in the wind farm sector. The amount of land those things need for an adequate amount of energy is ridiculous, but if they can hold the leases and improve the technology to increase the amount of juice per spin of the blades, there is potential. Same kind of downside to solar, as well. Not a lot of energy return, on a per acre basis. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to improve the tech or stop trying to find other forms of renewable energy, but the tech isn't where it needs to be in order to be a replacement for oil and gas. I had to go back to oil and gas because it pays me triple to quadruple for the same amount of work as wind farms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php to calculate expected energy production. It says I would save $700 per year for a 5kW system.

This site https://www.solar-estimate.org/solar-panels/dallas-texas says that solar costs $3.56 per watt, installed, or $17,800 for a 5kW system that I don't have roof space for but whatever.

The space I have to install is partially occluded by trees to the left and right. So let's say I lose 25%. Energy production $525 per year. Federal tax credit is 30%, so net cost is $12,460. That's a 4.2% return, which is notably after tax and relatively riskless. You'd want to factor in inverter replacement and panel efficiency losses to be more accurate. I think they're property tax free but they should increase your insurance, especially if there are trees like I have. So it's a decent return, although as I describe above, those numbers are optimistic. 

Solar panel installer websites designers must be nigerian princes, because they're terrible. Even if their numbers are credible, who the fuck names their website https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/texas/ ? It feels like going to a used car lot with a super aggressive car salesman who won't leave you alone. At least some of the numbers I am reading are completely and obviously fabricated.

I don't know if they allow it, but they should let you do a DIY and then have an electrician certify it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
On 9/28/2018 at 8:31 PM, Thetexashammer said:

I went to https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php to calculate expected energy production. It says I would save $700 per year for a 5kW system.

This site https://www.solar-estimate.org/solar-panels/dallas-texas says that solar costs $3.56 per watt, installed, or $17,800 for a 5kW system that I don't have roof space for but whatever.

The space I have to install is partially occluded by trees to the left and right. So let's say I lose 25%. Energy production $525 per year. Federal tax credit is 30%, so net cost is $12,460. That's a 4.2% return, which is notably after tax and relatively riskless. You'd want to factor in inverter replacement and panel efficiency losses to be more accurate. I think they're property tax free but they should increase your insurance, especially if there are trees like I have. So it's a decent return, although as I describe above, those numbers are optimistic. 

Solar panel installer websites designers must be nigerian princes, because they're terrible. Even if their numbers are credible, who the fuck names their website https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/texas/ ? It feels like going to a used car lot with a super aggressive car salesman who won't leave you alone. At least some of the numbers I am reading are completely and obviously fabricated.

I don't know if they allow it, but they should let you do a DIY and then have an electrician certify it. 

 

if the array is partially shaded it can cause the whole array to shut down unless you have the right controller hardware.  meaning if you know you are going to have shade issues you will possibly install it on more arrays to allow shade to be less damaging to your production.  so only the shaded areas go down when there is shade.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:


LOL.  Both the Chinese and the Germans are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into renewables.  The Chinese and the Germans ain't stupid. 

Germany is retiring nuclear power plants and already having weeks in which 65% of their electricity use comes from renewables, with almost half coming from windmills: 

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewables-generated-a-record-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week
 

 





 



 





 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


LOL.  Both the Chinese and the Germans are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into renewables.  The Chinese and the Germans ain't stupid. 

Germany is retiring nuclear power plants and already having weeks in which 65% of their electricity use comes from renewables, with almost half coming from windmills: 

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewables-generated-a-record-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week
 

 





 



 





 

windmills cause cancer bro.  POTUS said so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


LOL.  Both the Chinese and the Germans are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into renewables.  The Chinese and the Germans ain't stupid. 

Germany is retiring nuclear power plants and already having weeks in which 65% of their electricity use comes from renewables, with almost half coming from windmills: 

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewables-generated-a-record-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week
 

 





 



 





 

Germany has invested a ton in renewables but they are not in a very forgiving solar part of the world in terms of hours of great solar collection per day, per year.   They have a very high, on average, price per kilowatt.  (north of 30 cents per kilowatt)

China is a different story but it is hard to determine, from my amateur eyes, how they achieve their cheap reported cost per kilowatt unless they are saying if it is paid for by the government then there is no cost.  

I just recently signed up for a 8.5 cents per kilowatt plan that is 100% wind here in Texas for the next 12 months.  That was after doing two consecutive 3 month plans that were under 8 cents per kilowatt each that I don't recall how much was renewable.

The point of my post is renewable sounds great but if you are not in a windy area wind power won't pay for itself reasonably and similarly with solar not paying off in non-solar radiance hours per day/per year areas.  

Till they can get better on larger scale fossil fuels have their place in energy production.  Renewables have gotten better though, for sure.

Edited by zork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*kilowatt-hr (not kilowatt)

I wish Austin gave consumers the choice of suppliers.  8.5 cents per kw-hr is fantastic.  Austin Energy charges a fixed base (per kw-hr) and then a tiered rate which increases as consumption increases.  Our total blended rate last month came in at 12.3 cents per kw-hr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.  While it is true that 22 percent of the energy produced this year was from wind.  It is still very misleading.  That's 22 percent produced.  How much of it was consumed is the problem.  Wind mills have a few (about 40) extremely good days and produce a shit ton of energy then they have bad days about 300 where they produce 0.  So Energy produced to energy consumed is probably 5:1 so there is a lot of waste.  Coal costs money.  So they fire it up when on demand energy is required so it's probably closer to 1:1.  Wind is great but we can't get energy from it when needed.  A lot of times ERCOT NERC guys hate wind because they have to dump energy and get plants to fire down because their output is so high 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...