7 ms·

Even if that’s true (debatable), it’s important to not use it as ammo to slam renewables as a whole - which republicans are keen to do. We need to wean off of f

Even if that’s true (debatable), it’s important to not use it as ammo to slam renewables as a whole - which republicans are keen to do. We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause.

JADev62096 4y ago
So even if a technology isn't fulfilling our needs and is leading to problems, we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do?
- Edman274 4y ago
  Your unstated assertion here is that we don't actually need to try to mitigate global warming and that it's merely a moral question, or like some culture war tempest-in-a-teapot. We need to mitigate global warming. That's a need we have to fulfill. It's the "right" thing to do for that very reason. Creating a strawman by saying 'haha, you think we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do' suggests that it's the "right thing to do" in the same way that it's the "right" thing to put toilet paper with the free end facing the room rather than facing the wall, rather than a slow-moving catastrophe that will kill billions through crop failures.
- II2II 4y ago
  I believe the point is that there is more than one type of renewable energy. Using the shortcomings of one under certain circumstances as an excuse to pursue nonrenewable energy at the expense of the long-term consequences of nonrenewable energy is shortsighted. It should also be noted that nonrenewable energy sources also face supply issues. If anything, the issue is worse for nonrenewable energy in the long term since scarcity can only increase with time. Exploration and more intensive extraction techniques only postpone the exhaustion of resources while increasing costs. (I also find it somewhat ironic that the burning of carbon would most likely intensify the problem in the long run by increasing energy demands and decreasing the effectiveness of renewables.)
- salt-thrower 4y ago
  Fossil fuels are failing our very immediate need to stabilize climate change and survive for the next century. So yes, we should be considering other options, even if they’re not perfect.
- scifibestfi 4y ago
  Yes, the religion requires intellectual sacrifice.
  - biaachmonkie 4y ago
    You of course mean the religion of "Ignore man made climate change, pollute and ravage the environment as much as possible to maximize shareholder value, who cares it's the end-times Jesus will rapture us all any day now" ?? That religion?
    - scifibestfi 4y ago
      No, the one that is against building nuclear power plants.
wernercd 4y ago
don't slam a solution that can't do what's promised? Why? It's obviously failing on all levels... "hurt the cause" facts tend to do that when promises aren't met and people suffer.
- supernovae 4y ago
  the thing is, wind in general has far surpassed its expectations.
  - bequanna 4y ago
    How so? Our transition to wind and other intermittent sources instead of building base load is creating a worsening reliability crisis. It seems that people forgot that we still don't have many good ways to store energy.
    - supernovae 4y ago
      We never transitioned, wind was just the most economical growth opportunity for generation and it works really well in that regard. Just because we have increased wind doesn’t mean we don’t need to increase base generation. Not sure why you frame it like this.
      - bequanna 4y ago
        > most economical growth opportunity for generation Umm, I think you're missing something big here. The only reason this was "economical" were huge tax benefits/subsidies. Decentralized energy production that involves a bunch of large moving parts will NEVER be as efficient as centralized energy production.
      - Paradigma11 4y ago
        Because it is clear who is paying for the additional wind generation, it is not clear who is going to pay for the mostly unused backup base generation.
programmarchy 4y ago
So, just ignore the problems and double down? Sounds like a terrible strategy. If it doesn’t work we need to pivot to something more reliable, like nuclear energy.
- ta988 4y ago
  If nuclear plants in Texas are maintained as well as the rest of the equipment, sure it will be reliable.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  In the case of Texas, where idiocy rules to the level that the state is bonding billions to reimburse power companies for the failures and chaos caused by very predictable cold weather, that won’t work. Unfortunately, whomever runs the Texas public utility commission doesn’t work for the people of Texas.
  - programmarchy 4y ago
    Texas is one of the fasting growing states in the union, so the idiots running things must be doing something right.
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      Yes, making money for their patrons. Texas is blessed with many things.
    - rnk 4y ago
      Low taxes and flat planes of land that you can keep building new housing on, cheap, that makes it easy to keep growing out. Good for them I guess. But providing infrastructure for that expansion does cost something eventually, thus the struggles with increasing electricity in a state with less oversight. I find your comment pretty generic that could be applied to almost anything. California must be doing something right, because their tax surpluses are incredible. Same for lots of other states. So what, just because California has huge budget surpluses doesn't clarify if the state is serving its citizen's needs.
ms512 4y ago
Up front: I agree that there's generally too much posturing and too little focus on the data and how to actually solve our energy challenges. With that said, it's worth considering the aspect of what it takes to ensure energy is available when it is needed. With fossil fuels, plant generation capacity has been historically built to ensure satisfaction of peak loads. Fuel was stored nearby to allow meeting rated capacity whenever that capacity was needed. Renewables' generation is slightly more complex, since we have less control for making rated generation happen when we need it to meet demand. Of course, there are many options with making renewables work. Storage is one approach, overbuilding renewables to ensure a minimum actual generation in adverse conditions is another. As we work to reduce the costs of renewables (and storage), various renewable based options become increasingly economically advantageous. We shouldn't ignore the downsides; we should seek to understand what can be done about them. As far as data goes, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides power generation/consumption data for the US grid, including breakouts by generation source [1]. The data for the Texas grid (ERCO) is interesting to explore. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/balancing_authority/ERCO https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr... (you can expand the graphs and view hourly data for up to 30 days and daily data for a much longer period of time).
bequanna 4y ago
> We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause. Even if it makes absolutely no sense to do so? A friend of mine purchases power for a municipal utility. Regulation requires that they have to reserve capacity for up to estimated peak usage. If they choose wind generation they can only apply 7% of that capacity to their requirement! So, in order to match the reliability of other forms of power they would have to purchase 14.3x as much as required. Wind power is VERY unreliable. That isn't opinion, that is a fact recognized by everyone in the industry. If someone is telling you we can build a reliable grid with wind power as a large component, they are lying to you and pry lining their pockets. Attitudes like the one you express in your statement are music to the ears of those seeking to take advantage via profiteering and crony capitalism.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  I am sad that nobody ever discusses overbuilding by huge amounts to be a viable option. Wind power or solar power sometimes underdelivers? Well they are fantastically cheap systems, so just quadruple the investment/build out, and be pretty well off. This isn't investigated because 1) It is more expensive and 2) That will result in significant extra supply that will literally need to be "wasted". Electricity in many situations literally becomes "too cheap to meter" I personally don't see that as a downside because that "overproduction" should be thrown at things like carbon capture, which is much more viable when the electricity is literally priced negatively This is only not possible because people refuse to turn electricity into a fully public utility. They want their profits. The USA should treat it as a huge infrastructure project though, like the highway system, and either force or hugely subsidize the buildout of excessive renewable systems.

JADev62096 4y ago

So even if a technology isn't fulfilling our needs and is leading to problems, we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do?

Edman274 4y ago
Your unstated assertion here is that we don't actually need to try to mitigate global warming and that it's merely a moral question, or like some culture war tempest-in-a-teapot. We need to mitigate global warming. That's a need we have to fulfill. It's the "right" thing to do for that very reason. Creating a strawman by saying 'haha, you think we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do' suggests that it's the "right thing to do" in the same way that it's the "right" thing to put toilet paper with the free end facing the room rather than facing the wall, rather than a slow-moving catastrophe that will kill billions through crop failures.
II2II 4y ago
I believe the point is that there is more than one type of renewable energy. Using the shortcomings of one under certain circumstances as an excuse to pursue nonrenewable energy at the expense of the long-term consequences of nonrenewable energy is shortsighted. It should also be noted that nonrenewable energy sources also face supply issues. If anything, the issue is worse for nonrenewable energy in the long term since scarcity can only increase with time. Exploration and more intensive extraction techniques only postpone the exhaustion of resources while increasing costs. (I also find it somewhat ironic that the burning of carbon would most likely intensify the problem in the long run by increasing energy demands and decreasing the effectiveness of renewables.)
salt-thrower 4y ago
Fossil fuels are failing our very immediate need to stabilize climate change and survive for the next century. So yes, we should be considering other options, even if they’re not perfect.
scifibestfi 4y ago
Yes, the religion requires intellectual sacrifice.
- biaachmonkie 4y ago
  You of course mean the religion of "Ignore man made climate change, pollute and ravage the environment as much as possible to maximize shareholder value, who cares it's the end-times Jesus will rapture us all any day now" ?? That religion?
  - scifibestfi 4y ago
    No, the one that is against building nuclear power plants.

wernercd 4y ago

don't slam a solution that can't do what's promised? Why? It's obviously failing on all levels... "hurt the cause" facts tend to do that when promises aren't met and people suffer.

supernovae 4y ago
the thing is, wind in general has far surpassed its expectations.
- bequanna 4y ago
  How so? Our transition to wind and other intermittent sources instead of building base load is creating a worsening reliability crisis. It seems that people forgot that we still don't have many good ways to store energy.
  - supernovae 4y ago
    We never transitioned, wind was just the most economical growth opportunity for generation and it works really well in that regard. Just because we have increased wind doesn’t mean we don’t need to increase base generation. Not sure why you frame it like this.
    - bequanna 4y ago
      > most economical growth opportunity for generation Umm, I think you're missing something big here. The only reason this was "economical" were huge tax benefits/subsidies. Decentralized energy production that involves a bunch of large moving parts will NEVER be as efficient as centralized energy production.
    - Paradigma11 4y ago
      Because it is clear who is paying for the additional wind generation, it is not clear who is going to pay for the mostly unused backup base generation.

programmarchy 4y ago

So, just ignore the problems and double down? Sounds like a terrible strategy. If it doesn’t work we need to pivot to something more reliable, like nuclear energy.

ta988 4y ago
If nuclear plants in Texas are maintained as well as the rest of the equipment, sure it will be reliable.
Spooky23 4y ago
In the case of Texas, where idiocy rules to the level that the state is bonding billions to reimburse power companies for the failures and chaos caused by very predictable cold weather, that won’t work. Unfortunately, whomever runs the Texas public utility commission doesn’t work for the people of Texas.
- programmarchy 4y ago
  Texas is one of the fasting growing states in the union, so the idiots running things must be doing something right.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Yes, making money for their patrons. Texas is blessed with many things.
  - rnk 4y ago
    Low taxes and flat planes of land that you can keep building new housing on, cheap, that makes it easy to keep growing out. Good for them I guess. But providing infrastructure for that expansion does cost something eventually, thus the struggles with increasing electricity in a state with less oversight. I find your comment pretty generic that could be applied to almost anything. California must be doing something right, because their tax surpluses are incredible. Same for lots of other states. So what, just because California has huge budget surpluses doesn't clarify if the state is serving its citizen's needs.

ms512 4y ago

Up front: I agree that there's generally too much posturing and too little focus on the data and how to actually solve our energy challenges. With that said, it's worth considering the aspect of what it takes to ensure energy is available when it is needed. With fossil fuels, plant generation capacity has been historically built to ensure satisfaction of peak loads. Fuel was stored nearby to allow meeting rated capacity whenever that capacity was needed. Renewables' generation is slightly more complex, since we have less control for making rated generation happen when we need it to meet demand. Of course, there are many options with making renewables work. Storage is one approach, overbuilding renewables to ensure a minimum actual generation in adverse conditions is another. As we work to reduce the costs of renewables (and storage), various renewable based options become increasingly economically advantageous. We shouldn't ignore the downsides; we should seek to understand what can be done about them. As far as data goes, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides power generation/consumption data for the US grid, including breakouts by generation source [1]. The data for the Texas grid (ERCO) is interesting to explore. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/balancing_authority/ERCO https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr... (you can expand the graphs and view hourly data for up to 30 days and daily data for a much longer period of time).

bequanna 4y ago

> We need to wean off of fossil fuels asap, and this sentiment is easily manipulated to hurt that cause. Even if it makes absolutely no sense to do so? A friend of mine purchases power for a municipal utility. Regulation requires that they have to reserve capacity for up to estimated peak usage. If they choose wind generation they can only apply 7% of that capacity to their requirement! So, in order to match the reliability of other forms of power they would have to purchase 14.3x as much as required. Wind power is VERY unreliable. That isn't opinion, that is a fact recognized by everyone in the industry. If someone is telling you we can build a reliable grid with wind power as a large component, they are lying to you and pry lining their pockets. Attitudes like the one you express in your statement are music to the ears of those seeking to take advantage via profiteering and crony capitalism.

mrguyorama 4y ago
I am sad that nobody ever discusses overbuilding by huge amounts to be a viable option. Wind power or solar power sometimes underdelivers? Well they are fantastically cheap systems, so just quadruple the investment/build out, and be pretty well off. This isn't investigated because 1) It is more expensive and 2) That will result in significant extra supply that will literally need to be "wasted". Electricity in many situations literally becomes "too cheap to meter" I personally don't see that as a downside because that "overproduction" should be thrown at things like carbon capture, which is much more viable when the electricity is literally priced negatively This is only not possible because people refuse to turn electricity into a fully public utility. They want their profits. The USA should treat it as a huge infrastructure project though, like the highway system, and either force or hugely subsidize the buildout of excessive renewable systems.