Global wind capacity additions surged to a record high of 118GW in 2023

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Media_Truth, May 9, 2024.

  1. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Debunked ROI claims, and energy isn’t clean if creates the dirtiest waste known to mankind. These Radioactive wastes have to be managed for hundreds of thousands of years. Are Nuclear plants setting aside money for this purpose?
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As has been shown there are several sound engineering options. All that is needed is political will. Plus as has again been shown 'it's only waste if it's wasted'.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  3. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For you to even make the last statement shows that you are totally dishonest in your assessment. Also, you didn’t answer - Are Nuclear plants setting aside money for the purpose of the management of wastes by future generations?
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And again you have ignored all that has been posted. The pattern continues. Nuclear power plants are storing spent fuel rods until a political decision is made regarding how to dispose of the material.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  5. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who’s paying for that? Is that factored into the cost of Nuclear. Is the $2.2 billion that the Federal and State governments gave to California to keep your California Nuke plant open factored into the cost of Nuclear? Are the costs of storing spent fuels, along with the security personnel, of the many decommissioned plants in California factored into the costs of Nuclear. Hah - and you complain about CA Utility prices :cool::p:p:cool:
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Frantic arm waving.
     
  7. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Frantic effort to bail your buddy out, from the truth.
     
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not a bit. He has the facts on his side.
     
    AFM likes this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Euros are headed for an energy crisis of their own making.
    Looming European energy crisis: A lesson in averages that won’t soon be forgotten
    From the BOE REPORT

    Terry Etam

    Hundreds of millions of people without adequate heating fuel in the dead of winter is not particularly funny. If a cold winter strikes, all the yappiest energy-transition-now dogs will fade…

    A whole world of trouble will come your way if your plans are built on averages but you cannot live with the extremes. Or even with substantial variations. Europe, and other progressive energy parts of the world, are finding this out the hard way.

    In the race to decarbonize the energy system, wind and solar have taken a dominant lead. Nuclear is widely despised. Hydrogen has potential, but is a long way out, as a major player. On the assumption that Hydrocarbons Must Go At Any Cost, wind and solar are the winners. Bring on the trillions. Throw up wind turbines everywhere. Blanket the countryside in solar panels.

    The media loves the wattage count as fodder for headlines; big numbers dazzle people. “The United States is on pace to install record amounts of wind and solar this year, underscoring America’s capacity to build renewables at a level once considered impossible…The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the U.S. will install 37 gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity this year, obliterating the previous record of almost 17 GW in 2016,” bleated the ironically named Scientific American website. Wow, gigawatts. No idea what those are but they sound huge.

    What is the problem with all that capacity? Well, how good is it? Let’s see…at a 33 per cent capacity factor (used by the US government as apparently reasonable), that 37 GW is just over 12 GW of power contributed to the grid, on average. The assumption seems to be then that 12 GW of dirty old hydrocarbons have been rendered obsolete, and, for the energy rube, the number is an even more righteous 37 GW, because, you know, some days it is really windy all over.

    But, what happens when that load factor is…zero? Because it happens.

    The current poster child for the issue is Great Britain. The UK has 24 GW of wind power installed. The media loves to talk about total renewable GW installed as proof of progress, and the blindingly rapid pace of the energy transition.

    However over the past few weeks wind dropped almost to zero, and output from that 24 GW of installed capacity fell to about 1 or 2 GW.

    Ordinarily, that would be no problem – just fire up the gas fired power plants, or import power from elsewhere.

    But what happens when that isn’t available?

    More pertinently, what happens when the likelihood of near-zero output happens to coincide with the times when that power is needed most – in heat waves, or cold spells? That brings us to the current grave situation facing Europe as it heads towards winter. Gas storage is supposed to be filling rapidly at this time of year, but it’s not, for a number of reasons.

    Natural gas isn’t supposed to be on anyone’s roadmap, though. The culturally hip website Wired talked (in early September) about the imperative to limit global warming: “To make the switch we need to switch to renewable energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal, right now. We’re making good progress on this; solar and wind energy are now cheaper than fossil fuels, and renewable energy was responsible for around a third of global electricity production in 2020.” The first glimmer into the damage of relying on averages starts to show.

    A few weeks later, Wired shows that a few light bulbs may be going on: “There’s a tendency for the government to say the power sector is done, the sector has been decarbonised, the renewables transition is going at pace and all of that good stuff,” the article quotes the head of Energy UK.

    The article’s author, after musing that seven UK energy supply firms have gone out of business so far this year (a result of having to pay more to generate/acquire power than their locked in sales values), makes one of those profound British understatements of the my-arms-are-cut-off-and-I-appear-to-be-in-a-spot-of-trouble-old-chap variety: “And we’re reliant on gas more generally than we thought.” No, foul dullard, we are more reliant than you thought. Anyone in the business of providing energy could have told you that, but the simpleton army wouldn’t listen. And now you pay. . . .
     
    Pieces of Malarkey and AFM like this.
  10. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Article is all screwy, stating that 2016 was a record for renewables. That’s totally bogus. 2023 broke all records. I think you had better check your sources more thoroughly.
     
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That quote is from the Scientific American.
    "The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the U.S. will install 37 gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity this year, obliterating the previous record of almost 17 GW in 2016."
     
  12. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even more screwy! Maybe you’d better check the title of this thread.
     
  13. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    3,834
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Never walk across a wide river that's on average 3 feet deep.

    Duh.
     
    Jack Hays and AFM like this.
  14. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good advise. I don’t intend to…
     
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Averages are a great way to lie with statistics. The average number of grand slam tennis tournaments won between Novak and myself is 12.
     
    Pieces of Malarkey likes this.
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't matter.
     
  17. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Record wind additions for one year is 118 GW In 2023. That’s the equivalent of 118 Nuclear Power plants in capacity. It would take an an accumulative 1180 years to build those, and every one would require emergency safety meetings with all area residents. Property values would decrease also.
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Intermittent power needs baseload back-up.
    As for property values, as I've mentioned before, our gated community is some of the most expensive residential real estate in Virginia 25 miles from a nuclear power plant.
     
  19. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last time you said you were 5 miles from the plant. Hmmm. As that plant gets older, expect your rates to skyrocket. The reactor(s) will be offline a lot, but batteries can back it up.
     
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your memory is faulty; it has always been 25 miles. The plant is already over 50 years old and still has decades to go. It has never needed back-up.

    The plant has two 3-loop Westinghouse pressurized water reactors that went on-line in 1972 and 1973 respectively. Each reactor produces approximately 800 megawatts of power, for a combined plant output of 1.6 gigawatts. Surry Power Station draws its condenser cycle water directly from the James River, removing the need for the imposing cooling towers often associated with nuclear plants. Repeated testing shows that Surry Power Station has minimal environmental impact and releases virtually no radiation or harmful emissions.

    The station site was originally designed for four units; however, only two reactors were built. With increasing energy demands in the United States, it is possible that more reactors will be built at Surry in the next few decades.

    In 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) extended the operating licenses for both reactors from forty to sixty years. In 2016 its owner announced it intended in due course to seek an extension to eighty years of operation, to 2052 and 2053.[3] This extension to 80 years was obtained in 2021.

    Surry was one of the plants analyzed in the NUREG-1150 safety analysis study.
    Surry Nuclear Power Plant
    upload_2024-9-25_9-26-0.png
    Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Surry_Nuclear_Power...

    upload_2024-9-25_9-26-0.jpeg
    Surry Power Station is a nuclear power plant located in Surry County in southeastern Virginia, in the South Atlantic United States.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2024
    AFM likes this.
  21. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Glad you’re enjoying it. I hope you’re taking all the precautions.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...ithin-50-miles-nuclear-power-plant-180950072/

    Do You Live Within 50 Miles of a Nuclear Power Plant?

    The commission also suggests thatanyone within 50 miles to take action to protect local food and water supplies.

    after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, authorities from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended that Americans living within 50 miles of the plant to evacuate.
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We’re fine, thanks.
     
    AFM likes this.
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That recommendation with regard to Fukushima was panic based and hampered rescue operations from the real dangers at Fukushima.


    “The 2011 Japanese accident was much more serious. Caused by a powerful undersea earthquake and resulting tsunami that buffeted the facility with waves nearly fifty feet high, the power plant flooded, and both grid power and the onsite backup diesel generators were knocked out, eliminating the emergency core cooling system. This eventually led to full meltdown of three of the six reactors. Nevertheless, if anything, the Fukushima event proved the safety of nuclear power. In the midst of a devastating disaster which killed some 28,000 people by drowning, falling buildings, fire, suffocation, exposure, disease, and many other causes, not a single person was killed by radiation. Nor was anyone outside the plant gate exposed to any significant radiological dose.

    There may have been substantial nuclear-related casualties, however—but these were caused by Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the Obama administration’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Following the Fukushima incident, Jaczko spread panic by warning all American citizens to stay at least fifty miles away from the Fukushima power plants. The resulting climate of fear and panic hampered rescue efforts. U.S. Navy forces steaming toward the rescue were ordered to stay 100 miles away—leaving unknown numbers of victims adrift on wreckage or trapped under buildings within the fifty-mile zone to die, despite a complete lack of evidence for any actually dangerous levels of radiation outside of the plant gate. 12

    (Jaczko may well be the most anti-nuclear chairman that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ever had. A former aide to the very anti-nuclear Representative Ed Markey (D.-MA) and to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Jaczko was responsible for the extraordinary efforts of the Obama administration to prevent the establishment of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In doing so, he not only broke his word to Congress—which, concerned about bias stemming from his work for Harry Reid, asked him at his confirmation hearing to recuse himself from Yucca Mountain matters—but violated the fundamental purpose of his office.

    Instead of trying to make nuclear power as safe as possible, Jaczko’s effort to stop safe nuclear waste storage located far away from populated areas represented an attempt to make the industry as dangerous as possible, in order to shut it down.) 13”

    — The Case For Nukes: How We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future by Robert Zubrin
    https://a.co/7bBzkJV
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  24. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everybody that lived here thought they were fine:

    What is the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone?

    https://www.livescience.com/chernobyl-exclusion-zone

    The zone includes an area of roughly 1,040 square miles (2,700 square kilometer) around the 18.6 mile (30 km) radius of the plant; the area was considered the most severely irradiated environment and was cordoned off to anyone but government officials and scientists,
     
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If they had had US nuclear power they would have been.
     

Share This Page