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

I have not taken a position on global average temperatures. I also to not make baseless claims about conspiracy theories or quackery merely to dodge research findings that contradict a preferred narrative.

 

L

He is getting desperate as he is saying I don't want to debate just make up strawman fallacies to makes excuses for ducking a debate.

 

You joined in the discussion.

 

This is a forum.

 

Then stop complaining.

 

Not complaining, just correcting your inaccuracies.

 

As if you're qu

As if you or Bullseye are qualified? Hate to tell you, but I'm not qualified to question the accuracy, nor or either of you. Below is the methodology. Now if you have a reputable source that disputes these methods, by all means, present it. But for either of you to "blurt out claims of inaccuracy" is ridiculous.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202213/supplemental/page-5

Methodology
The key drivers for the calculation are 1) the difference, or separation, between recent monthly readings versus all previous annually-averaged values and 2) the statistical distribution of month-to-month fluctuations in the historical record. We utilize the operational version of the monthly global land and ocean NOAAGlobalTemp time series from January 1975–present. We utilize this time period because it provides a 40+ year baseline for estimating month-to-month fluctuations that are likely to be representative of real-time fluctuations. Next, we remove an ordinary least squares trend and simulate plausible outcomes based on autoregressive modeling of the residual time series. Finally, we add back in the trend as extended to account for simulated months, compute annual averages, and compare them to all prior annual averages since 1880 to arrive at annual rankings. This process is repeated 10,000 times, and we report the two-tailed 95% confidence interval. This methodology is analogous to an earlier analysis used to characterize whether a year would go on to become the warmest year on record. We anticipate that a future version of this product will account for statistical relationships between El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indices and global temperatures.

 

The reference was to your inaccuracies about posters and who said what, not the substance.

 

This discussion started at post #222. I'll repeat the text here. You chimed in supporting the statement. I would urge you to let the OP reply to #232 above, and stop resorting to your tit-for-tat narratives.

"How can one temperature represent that state of the globe's condition? There are huge swaths of land were no sensors are located. Obviously, bodies of water are scarcely monitored. Exactly WHAT does that single number represent? It's construction, a formulaic abstraction. How are normal weather events compensated for?"

The NOAA is highly respected as the utmost authority in their field.

 

And I urge you not to claim I "chimed in" when I did not. I merely noted your disinclination to back up your claim.

 

I see no difference.

 

As I said earlier, I took no position on the global temperature question.

 

Back on topic:

https://www.climatecentral.org/report/solar-and-wind-power-2024

The U.S. added more than 121 GW of utility- and small-scale solar capacity in total during the last decade — an increase of around 688% (Figure 2). This means there was nearly eight times more solar capacity in 2023 than in 2014.


I've mentioned before that the average nuclear plant is about 1 GW. So 191 GWatts is a lot of power. Small steps (one rooftop at a time, one solar power plant at a time) are working!

 

A drop in the bucket.
Solar energy accounted for some 4.75 percent of electricity generation in the United States in 2022, up from a 3.96 percent share a year earlier. California was the state with the largest percentage of its electricity generation covered by solar, with approximately 27.3 percent.Oct 26, 2023

Solar energy penetration U.S. 2022 | Statista

 

The only valid point that your post is saying is that there is a lot of electricity demand in the US. The equivalent of ONE-HUNDRED-TWENTY-ONE nuclear power plants is a lot of power.

 

Not really.

 

I debated this with you a few years ago, and you said the same thing when Solar was less than 1%. I imagine you'll say be saying it again for the next few years as that percentage of "new" solar continues to rise. This year 50% of new capacity - look at the projections for the next few years.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-update

Jan 25, 2024 · EIA projects the percentage of U.S. electric capacity additions from solar will grow from 46% in 2022 (18 GWac) to 54% in 2023 (31 GWac), 63% in 2024 (44 GWac), and 71% in 2025.

One roof at a time!

 

The energy transition is going . . . nowhere.
Tracking The Demise Of The U.S. Green Energy Transition
April 21, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  We’re coming up on three and a half years into the Biden presidency — a presidency which from the outset promised an “all of government” regulatory onslaught to force a transition away from fossil fuels and to “green” energy. And the regulatory onslaught has indeed come forth.
  
  
• But how about the actual transition in energy use? Not so much.
  
  
• Let’s have a round-up of some recent data points.
  

READ MORE

 

There's a "sorcerer's apprentice" quality to this story.
Rooftop solar panels are flooding California’s grid. That’s a problem.
As electricity prices go negative, the Golden State is struggling to offload a glut of solar power.
By Shannon Osaka

 

What a great problem to have - too much solar power! This will encourage more innovation, such as the San Diego company who stores power in retired EV batteries. Also a good opportunity for pumped water storage.

 

Also, this is good for all consumers this summer. A CA study showed that solar eats into peak load - it shifts peak load from 4-6 pm on hot summer days to 7-8 pm on hot sunny days, but also reduces the PEAK. This will mean that new power plants won't have to be built, which would raise electricity rates.

 

The Law of Unintended Consequences / The Hawthorne Effect

The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people — and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.

 

My argument is that will be a good thing in this case!

 

That would be unusual.

 

No it is you who is deliberately blind to its weaknesses which are many and not economic either you want these ruinables to be forced onto the public which is my main complaint when there are superior energy sources to build on.