• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

Well, you cold say soar is not renewable, the Sun will not go on forever.

For all practical purposes solar is called renewable because to us it is inextinguishable.

It is semantics. Wood for fuel is renewable, plant more as you harvest. Natural gas, and coal are not renewable.

From the solar power industry alternative energy sources can not completely replace existing fossil fuel plants.

We need a new grid that integrates renewables and nuclear or natural gas..
No. Solar and wind are the only major renewables, both are quite intermittent. And nuke does not throttle well (when a pile goes from high power to low power it will get some xenon poisoning, which makes the throttle overshoot when powering it back up. This is what destroyed Chernobyl--they tried to bring the power up too fast, then the guy in charge refused to power down when the plant got too hot), so it does not mix well with intermittent sources.

Nuke or renewables, not both unless there's a major breakthrough in storage.
 
All of the above economic analysis is carefully hidden from consumers by government subsidies; We pay not only through our utility bills, but also through taxation, making a direct comparison of costs (deliberately) difficult*, and through price guarantee deals - grids are often required by law to pay for electricity from specified generators at no less than a minimum price, regardless of the actual prevailing market price, leading to other generators seeing negative wholesale prices - a cost to their businesses which is necessarily passed on to consumers via even greater utility bill prices. This is why the recent proliferation of wind and solar has not only failed to lower prices (as many naïvely expect from looking at fuel cost alone), but has actually seen prices soar.
Yup. Pro-solar ballot initiative. The electric company warned that passing it would raise rates. It passed, rates went up, people were screaming at the power company.
 
In both Hawaii and Ca I think utilities had programs that guaranteed a rate for buying excess power from home solar. The idea being to stimulate solar by guaranteeing a predicable return on investment.

There was enough excess power put into the grid that it upset the rate structures. Unforeseen consequences.


The integration of customer-generated (behind-the-meter) solar or other energy sources into the grid
upsets traditional utility rate structures by creating a mismatch between fixed costs and variable revenue. This dynamic can lead to a "utility death spiral" and necessitates rate design changes.

Our free market system dies not allow for or makes it difficult to make creative solutions to energy problems.

We have all the technology we need t make a grid tingeing wind and solarr backed by nuclear and or a minimum of fossil fuels.

Maximizing local solar and wind makes a distributed system more tolerant to failures and sabotage.

We did large scale long term infrastructure projects before. Rural electrification and the Tennessee

Valley Authority. And the national highway system.

I was a kid in Ct wen the I95 interstate came through town replacing d the old Boston Post Road,.

The Boston Post Road was a system of mail-delivery routes between New York City and Boston, Massachusetts, that evolved into one of the first major highways in the United States.


The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a federally-owned electric utility corporation in the United States. TVA's service area covers all of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small areas of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. While owned by the federal government, TVA receives no taxpayer funding and operates similarly to a private for-profit company. It is headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee, and is the sixth-largest power supplier and largest public utility in the country.[1][2]

With a generating capacity of approximately 35 gigawatts (GW), TVA has the sixth highest generation capacity of any utility company in the United States and the third largest nuclear power fleet, with seven units at three sites.[1][15] In addition, it also operates four coal-fired power plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, nine simple-cycle natural gas combustion turbine plants, nine combined cycle gas plants, 1 pumped storage hydroelectric plant, 1 wind energy site, and 14 solar energy sites.[16] In fiscal year 2020, nuclear generation made up about 41% of TVA's total energy production, natural gas 26%, coal 14%, hydroelectric 13%, and wind and solar 3%.[16] TVA purchases about 15% of the power it sells from other power producers, which includes power from combined cycle natural gas plants, coal plants, and wind installations, and other renewables.[17] The cost of Purchased Power is part of the "Fuel Cost Adjustment" (FCA) charge that is separate from the TVA Rate. In addition, the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant is the only facility in the country to industrially produce tritium, which is used by the National Nuclear Security Administration for nuclear weapons, where it is used to supercharge and boost the explosive yield of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.[18]


Our nuclear plants generate enough low-cost, clean, and reliable energy to power about a third of our customers—more than 4.5 million homes and businesses. With a top priority of safety and security, nuclear power is key to achieving TVA’s mission of energy, environmental stewardship, and economic development to make life better for the Tennessee Valley.
Our Plants

We operate three nuclear plants capable of generating an average of 8,275 megawatts of electricity:

Browns Ferry, near Athens, Alabama
Sequoyah, in Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee
Watts Bar, near Spring City, Tennessee





9,766 MW Operating and Contracted Renewables Capacity
1,952 MW utility-scale solar agreements with 8 projects in operation
Renewable Energy from solar, wind, hydroelectric and biomass


We need it on a national scale.
 
Maximizing local solar and wind makes a distributed system more tolerant to failures
And FAR more prone to them. Wind plus solar is guaranteed to fail on a calm night. If you have a nuclear plant ready to go, that can cover that failure, then you could have just been running the nuke 24x7 at barely any greater cost, and saved the money it cost to buy and install the wind turbines and solar panels. If you don't, then you have no choice but to burn fossil fuel.
We need it on a national scale.
You don't need it at all; It's a collossal waste of money, and is fundamentally incapable of achieving the objective of eliminating fossil fuel use, without massive increases in electricity prices.

Or do you have a different objective in mind?
 
You don't need it at all; It's a collossal waste of money, and is fundamentally incapable of achieving the objective of eliminating fossil fuel use, without massive increases in electricity prices.

Or do you have a different objective in mind?
Nuke is big. They want small. Thus solar/wind. What they want must be possible, so it must work. Faith.

And Moscow simply wants to fuck up our economy.
 
‘Windmills are a disgrace’: Inside Trump’s war against a growing U.S. industry - POLITICO - "Efforts to avoid conflict and seek help from GOP moderates didn't spare wind companies from the president's attacks."
Since Trump returned to the White House, his regulators have moved to withdraw permits for six offshore wind projects along the East Coast and halted construction of two others, including one south of New England that was 80 percent complete. He has also wiped out federal tax credits supporting wind and solar, while his agencies have opened reviews of the wind industry’s national security implications and alleged health hazards and erected barriers to turbine projects on both water and land.

The uprooting of wind projects is especially striking at a time when political leaders from both parties are calling for a massive increase in electricity generation nationwide, citing rising consumer prices and the soaring power demands of data centers. And the ferocity of the president’s attacks stunned executives who had assumed they could work with him, even after a 2024 campaign in which Trump baselessly alleged that wind power causes cancer and has killed hundreds of whales.
The Trump Admin?
“President Trump has been extremely transparent: wind energy is the scam of the century,” spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement.

“Reversing the Green New Scam was a very popular promise President Trump made on the campaign trail to the American people, who were tired of the Left’s radical and expensive climate agenda,” she added. “President Trump issued very direct policy guidance on offshore wind on day one, which the administration has been working diligently to carry out.”

Trump denounces wind power just about every chance he gets, including during the White House’s July 4 picnic for military families, his address to the United Nations General Assembly in September, last month’s U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Washington, and numerous posts on his social media network, Truth Social.

“Wind is the worst,” Trump said Tuesday night at a rally in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania. “That’s a scam. They ruin your valleys. They ruin your peaks. And [it’s] the most expensive energy.”
What got him started?
The decision to halt Empire Wind was one of the first signs that the wind policies of Trump’s second term would be dramatically different from those of his first. But the administration’s efforts reached new heights over the summer after Trump traveled to Scotland for a diplomatic summit with European leaders.

The trip included a stop at Aberdeenshire, the site of one of Trump’s Scottish golf courses. Nearly a dozen offshore wind turbines tower on the horizon, a visual reminder of the unsuccessful decade-long campaign Trump waged before he was president to prevent their construction.

“Windmills are a disgrace,” Trump told reporters during the trip. “They hurt everything they touch.”

When the president got home, a regulatory blitz followed.

...
“He got back from Scotland. It reminded him how much he hated these windmills and he asked why the hell they haven’t been shut down yet,” said one of the people familiar with the White House’s deliberations.

...
“He really just hates wind,” the person said.
 
The seemingly unstoppable growth of renewable energy is Science’s 2025 Breakthrough of the Year

This year, renewables surpassed coal as a source of electricity worldwide, and solar and wind energy grew fast enough to cover the entire increase in global electricity use from January to June, according to energy think tank Ember. In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared at the United Nations that his country will cut its carbon emissions by as much as 10% in a decade, not by using less energy, but by doubling down on wind and solar. And solar panel imports in Africa and South Asia have soared, as people in those regions realized rooftop solar can cheaply power lights, cellphones, and fans. To many, the continued growth of renewables now seems unstoppable—a prospect that has led Science to name the renewable energy surge its 2025 Breakthrough of the Year.
 
One advantage of doing a profit/loss statement each year for my wife's business is the historical records kept of electricty and power bills back to 2008.
I look back at energy prices in just 2018 and wonder how did we get the today's prices and for what purpose?
Prices in Australia for natural gas have exploded in recent years, even since just 2020.
We had a competetive adavantage in cheaper energy prices and seemed to throw it away.
From the article we have the following "It has also linked domestic gas prices with the higher priced international market."
What I never understood is why did we have to link our domestic (Aust.) gas prices to the higher international market?
Have heard lots of blather about it but never anything that makes coherent sense rather than non-sense.
Perhaps someone from here can explain why would a country link its own domestic supply to higher international prices? Apart of course from a form of price gouging? And taxes, royalties etc. for govts of all types.

There would be a similar story with our electricity prices. Affects transport, manufacturing, wages etc.
 
What I never understood is why did we have to link our domestic (Aust.) gas prices to the higher international market?
We didn't have to. But by doing so, we enabled gas exporters to get rich(er), thus enabling them to donate large sums to politicians and their parties*; And it was entirely in keeping with the Liberal Party ideology of free market economics as the best, indeed only, way to manage anything.

John Howard got the ball rolling, with his sale of North West Shelf gas to China at what looked, in 2002, like a locked-in fair price; But which a few years later looked like a massive discount on the international spot price. The Rudd, Gillard, and Rudd governments subsequently did three-eighths of bugger-all to redress this situation, not least because they didn't want to upset the Chinese.

If you don't want laissez-faire economic policies to dictate Australian interactions with commodity export customers, don't vote for the Liberal Party. And certainly not for the Liberal Party under John Howard.

If you don't want craven acquiesence to Chinese pressure to continue a long-since obsolete deal, don't vote for... Well, any Australian political party. None of them have the spine to stand up to the Chinese, and given the clout (both economic and military) that Beijing can being to bear, I am not at all surprised.




* Both political and social
 
No. Solar and wind are the only major renewables, both are quite intermittent.

Geothermal and power from ocean waves or tides are less intermittent. They should be developed ASAP.

And nuke does not throttle well ...

What is really needed is dynamic pricing of electricity. When unthrottled nuclear is competing with renewables on a sunny windy day, electricity should be very cheap: Encourage uses that can be done at any time: various pumping applications, EV charging, (crypto mining??), etc.

Storing electric energy as hydrogen gas has only half the efficiency of batteries, but would be a last-resort way to exploit otherwise-unused electricity when it's priced cheaply.
 
What is really needed is dynamic pricing of electricity. When unthrottled nuclear is competing with renewables on a sunny windy day, electricity should be very cheap
Sure; But the flip side is that on a stormy freezing winters night, electricity should be very, very expensive.

Texas demonstrated this back in 2001; Since then, wholesale-pass-through retail contracts have been banned. It seems that retail customers are unhappy with suddenly getting electricity bills in the tens of thousands of dollar range for their small suburban homes.

It turns out that people want predictable and stable prices, almost as much as they want low prices.

So what they would be happiest with is moderately priced non-intermittent power generation, not low priced but highly intermittent generation. So coal or nuclear.

Oh, and they want carbon free. So not coal.
 
Last edited:
What is really needed is dynamic pricing of electricity. When unthrottled nuclear is competing with renewables on a sunny windy day, electricity should be very cheap
Sure; But the flip side is that on a stormy freezing winters night, electricity should be very, very expensive.

Texas demonstrated this back in 2001; Since then, wholesale-pass-through retail contracts have been banned. It seems that retail customers are unhappy with suddenly getting electricity bills in the tens of thousands of dollar range for their small suburban homes.

It turns out that people want predictable and stable prices, almost as much as they want low prices.

So what they would be happiest with is moderately priced non-intermittent power generation, not low priced but highly intermittent generation. So coal or nuclear.

Oh, and they want carbon free. So not coal.
I will partially agree. Pass through pricing is obviously very bad, but that doesn't mean you can't have some flexibility. The Texas problem was more invisibility. Set a standard power rate, a peak rate that's not too far above the peak, but allow the grid to offer minute by minute deviations from the baseline. The sun is shining, the solar arrays are putting out a lot, offer power a bit cheaper. Large scale users could optimize for taking advantage of such things when practical, even homes could get in on the same with EV charging. (Set the % charge you desire and the time, the controller guesses what it might be able to get and tries to use cheaper power to do it. That would more be with wind at night, though.)
 
Commercial flywheel short term power back up has been around for a while.

 
Courts allow all five offshore wind projects blocked by Trump to resume construction thus ending Trump administration pauses 5 offshore wind farm projects in last December.
In December, the Trump administration sought to block the five projects, arguing they posed a national security threat. It said that their turbines could interfere with radar signals – an argument wind supporters have argued was a pretext to block projects the administration simply does not like.

President Trump has voiced a longstanding hatred of wind power and has said repeatedly that he does not want to see new wind energy projects built during his tenure.

...
Sunrise Wind would provide enough power for as many as almost 600,000 homes, according to its website. It’s being constructed about 30 miles from Montauk Point on Long Island and could begin operating next year.
The project: 100% renewable offshore wind energy for New York | Ørsted - it should be done in 2027.

Judge Permits Vineyard Wind Project to Restart Work
Vineyard Wind, which would provide power to Massachusetts, is one of five projects that the Trump administration tried to hold up in December.

According to its website, when complete, Vineyard Wind would be able generate enough power for 400,000 homes and businesses.
The project: Vineyard Wind

Judge allows Vineyard Wind to resume construction - The New Bedford Light - "Vineyard Wind can now install the last of 62 turbine towers and add blades to 10 unfinished turbines."

Judge permits offshore wind project to restart work
According to Dominion Energy, the Virginia project would be able to generate enough power for up to 660,000 Virginia homes.
The project: Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind | Dominion Energy - it should be done in late 2026.

Judge allows Empire Wind construction to proceed despite Trump order
The project would provide enough power for up to 500,000 homes, according to its website.
The project: Home - Empire Wind - it should be done in 2027.

Judge greenlights Revolution Wind, defying Trump halt
Revolution Wind is being built off the coast of Rhode Island and, once completed, will provide power to Rhode Island and Connecticut.

According to its website, it could generate enough energy to power as many as 350,000 homes and is more than 80 percent complete.
The project: Renewable offshore wind for Rhode Island and Connecticut | Ørsted - 80% done, should be done in 2026.

More from The New Bedford Light:
The White House blasted the ruling. “President Trump has been clear: wind energy is the scam of the century,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers wrote in an email to The Light. “For years, Americans have been forced to pay billions more for the least reliable source of energy. The Trump administration has paused the construction of all large-scale offshore wind projects because our number one priority is to put America First and protect the national security of the American people. The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”
However,
“As the legal process proceeds, Vineyard Wind will continue to work with the administration to understand the matters raised in the order,” spokesperson Craig Gilvarg wrote. He said Vineyard Wind would work with the federal government and others to “safely restart activities, as it continues to deliver a critical source of new power to the New England region.”
 
These states say Trump's energy emergency isn't real | Utah Public Radio
In their lawsuit, the 16 states, all with Democratic attorneys general, argue there's no such emergency according to the National Emergencies Act. They also say Trump's order unfairly leaves out certain energy sources like wind and solar.
More centrally, they contend that federal agencies are side-stepping important environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, to carry out the executive order.

"Saying, 'You're using this emergency authority, or at least saying you're going to, in ways that don't comply with the statute or the regulation that gives you some emergency authorities,'" explained Erika Kranz, a staff attorney with the environmental and energy law program at Harvard Law School.
 
In case you haven't seen his latest turd:


Ya. Clean coal. One of his big lies.

Because, you know, Climate change is not a threat and Co2 is not a problem. It's all a hoax.

There will be millions or billions of deaths because of Trump.

Trump delivers a deadly blow to EPA’s ability to regulate climate pollution​

 
All it takes is the will to do it. We are stuck with Trump.



China’s energy fortress was built to withstand just this type of oil shock​


Beijing — For more than a decade, leader Xi Jinping has overseen a transformation within the Chinese economy with one aim: making it energy-secure.

Under that vision, China has unleashed a renewable energy revolution of wind, solar and hydropower, drilled ever deeper into oilfields offshore and on, and forged pacts with partners for more supply – all in a bid to cut the country’s reliance on imported fuel and insulate it against “external shocks.”
 
Back
Top Bottom