Solar now accounts for over 50% of new electricity capacity added to the U.S. grid

Your graph is not a flat-line nor is it a decrease in electrical capacity. It is a slight increase. Electricity usage is only slightly up, because of Conservation measures, predominantly with smart appliances, more efficient homes (less AC), and LED (and CF) lightbulbs. The bottom line is there was capacity increase, and 50% of that capacity was provided by solar.


BTW, that graph is interactive, and you can add up the totals to see the slight increase.

 

So you believe we have no need to make new energy and it’s sufficient to maintain. Then why is California telling people to stop charging or lower AC use? Your claim comes with zero proof.

yea there was slight as in very slight increases. But the graph clearly shows more of a maintaining process then growth. The problem will sooner or later be screamed about and it will show its face wether you like it or not.

 

How many permits for new nat gas or coal plants were allowed? Or Nuke plants for that matter.


this graphic comes from your link


Solar looks like 3.4%

 

I just had a feeling with the opening post.

Crap wrapped in impossible to define meaningless buzzwords.

Yippee!

 

What is the utilization of this 32.4 GW?

 

Excellent. Good for Biden. (He works quietly, not drawing attention to HIMSELF,.. *at every opportunity)....and is achieving a lot more than some want to give him credit for)

 

This is the basic problem with wind. The energy rate of return is too small making wind and solar not economical.

Schernikau, Lars; Smith, William Hayden. The Unpopular Truth: about Electricity and the Future of Energy (pp. 118-119). Energeia Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

That sounds like someone is a bit out of touch with where things are and are going.

 

Tell the State of Iowa that. They get 60% of their power from wind, They have a wind-first philosophy, and use natural gas generated power as a backup. When the rest of the states get to 60%, we can start talking about additional solutions.

 

I'll speak up for residential solar. When I produce a surplus, my neighbors pull from that additional grid-current. In essence, my neighbors are using my generated electricity. This is highly efficient for Utilities, because they incur less voltage loss. Voltage loss represents about a 5% overhead for Utilities. This 5% is totally lost.

 

You are welcome to provide evidence I’m out of touch. Here are my recent posts on climate science. Please point out what makes you think I’m out of touch with what is really going on. Be specific and provide evidence what I’ve posted is in error.

Go…

 

@MiaBleu

Now don’t be shy! You made the accusation I’m out of touch with what’s really going on. Substantiate that claim! Let’s see the pull quotes of my incorrect or out of touch statements using the PF quote function. Let’s see the peer reviewed evidence produced through application of the scientific method that demonstrates my posts are out of touch or incorrect. Time to substantiate your flippant accusation!

 

In addition, solar is a peak-load producer. It produces at it's peak on hot sunny summer days, when AC use is at its highest. AC is by far the biggest residential load for Utilities. Actual peak hours in most states are between 4-6 pm, when solar is producing at a very high rate. A California study showed that solar actually shifts the peak load to 7-8 pm, which is very beneficial, because the peak has a lower plateau. This means less new power plants have to be built, and that means less-expensive power for all users. Be sure to thank your neighbor with solar panels!!!

 

Thank you . If I misinterpreted your words, I apologize.

 

Thank you. I do my very best to base my posts on peer reviewed studies, official government data, and verifiable statistics.

My comment on corn drying stems from the fact agriculture in Iowa produces double the carbon emissions of electricity generation. Yet you never hear anyone mention that. The focus of media and politicians is typically on power generation, not agriculture. One reason agriculture in Iowa can’t be scrutinized as a source of carbon emissions is such an examination would expose the shell game of exporting emissions engaged in by states like California, Washington and New York.

California uses more ethanol than any state—2,035,000,000 gallons annually. Guess how much they produce? Only 11% of usage—223,000,000 gallons! The majority of ethanol produced in my state is shipped by rail to California so they can pretend to have low carbon fuel. It’s a fraud, but it’s Californians that are the victims of the fraud. Residents are told they are reducing carbon emissions but they are really just ensuring those emissions occur outside the state. Another case of “progressive” policy resulting in the opposite effect it’s supposed to have. Instead of growing renewable fuels they (California) grow almonds as a cash crop that uses extraordinary amounts of water they don’t have. They are chasing dollars at the expense of the environment.

To be clear, ethanol is a viable clean renewable energy source when done correctly. But it is being used as the shell in a shell game of moving emissions out of one state into another. This is how some states plan to achieve low or zero emissions status. By importing energy and leaving the carbon emissions debt in another state. Iowa is the number one biofuel producing state, but number 28 in consumption. A lot of carbon emissions are being credited to Iowa instead of other states.

Again, ethanol is “better” than petroleum fuels, but it’s also a very handy method of passing emissions off to other geographic regions.

 

Iowa has double the capacity that they need to cover the times in which the wind doesn't blow. The eROI for wind is low. Those in charge in Iowa have needlessly increased the cost of electricity to their consumers. Why would they do that?

 

Why would anyone invest in doubling their energy production capacity to save 5% on transmission losses?

 

Actually this strategy results in more power production "plants" to be built because of the redundancy required. Building more capacity does NOT mean less expensive power for all users. Please explain why electrical rates in California are much higher than the US average. Please explain why Germans who have made huge investments in wind power pay 3X the US average.

 

How does the price of energy in Iowa compare to the national average per kwh?

 

I'll just post something that I just looked up, because you post entry after entry with no backup. As a result of your exageration on this particular topic, I won't address the other posts.

On average, Iowa residents spend about $144 per month on electricity. That adds up to $1,728 per year. That's 28% lower than the national average electric bill of $2,410

The cost of living in Iowa is 7% lower than the national average. Housing is 20% lower than the national average, while utilities are 4% lower.

https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/electricity-rates-by-state/

 

What are the rates for kwh? How do subsidies from the federal and state government affect this rate? I and many others have backed up those statements for years.

 

Converting to solar and wind is an economic drag chute. The Chinese Communist Party know this. And they have stated that it makes no sense to replace fossil fuel power plants with green renewables. But the Chinese Communist Party is quite willing to sell as much wind and solar hardware to the western democracies as they can. They make money as well as do damage to the western economies by subsidizing the economic slowdown of the western democracies. All this contributes to the Chinese Communist Party's 100 year plan to dominate the world. And all this is occurring without the Chinese Communist Party firing a shot in anger. The Art of War - Sun Tzu.

Schernikau, Lars; Smith, William Hayden. The Unpopular Truth: about Electricity and the Future of Energy (pp. 112-113). Energeia Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

You really need to research before posting these uniformed opinions. Also, on your previous post, I posted actual numbers to refute your false assertions, and you respond by shifting the narrative with a request for more data. Do your own research! This is a science forum - research is essential. The Chinese have installed double the renewable capacity of any country in the world in the last 2 years, so your "economic drag chute" comment is just preposterous.

 

The Chinese Communist Party installs but doesn’t use solar or wind. These are Potemkin installations. The western democracies are the pawns of the Chinese Communist Party.

 

I live and farm by one of these farms. They suck. The are ugly, noisy, leak oil, erode the ground surrounding the windmill, have blades fail and throw debris all over, then the cranes have to come in and tear the living hell out of your field. They are not the future.