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

well we certainly know your allegiances. What are your ties to fossil fuel industry? Many Nebraskans and Nebraskan organizations disagree with you. They cite the many financial benefits for wind belt states to pursue wind energy!

https://thereader.com/2023/04/10/wi...ing-throughout-nebraska-thanks-to-wind-farms/

“Jenkins describes Nebraska as part of a “wind belt” in the U.S. where there’s already a huge amount of wind generation, primarily in Texas and Iowa. While Nebraska ranks fourth among U.S. states for potential wind energy generation, it ranks 15th in installed capacity. “

“Similarly, as wind energy has grown in Nebraska, so has investment in data centers. Facebook’s decision to set up in Papillion was credited to the Omaha Public Power District, which promised to provide 100% renewable electricity to the data center, courtesy of the Rattlesnake Creek wind farm in Dixon County. Another expansion, which will be powered by the same wind farm, is underway in nearby Springfield.

Google has purchased 100% renewable energy for its operations since 2017, which include”
“
The Rocky Mountain Institute, a pro-renewable-energy think tank, projects that Iowa municipalities, landowners and workers could collectively earn $5.3 billion in local taxes, lease payments and wages from wind farms built during the 2020s. By contrast, the smaller number of wind farms expected in Nebraska are projected to produce $290 million in such benefits within the same period.”

 

Dude. I’m just stating FACTS. It’s a fact our low rates kept wind from taking off here early on. I stated it’s changing. That’s exactly what your post says!

Why would I produce renewable energy and take drastic measures to reduce consumption of fossil fuels if I had allegiance to or had ties to the fossil fuel industry? I have strong ties to renewable energy production.

I do have loyalty to our public power. It not only delivers power at low cost, it supplies is with the most reliable grid in the country (we trade number one status back and forth from time to time but remain either number one or number two most reliable nationwide).

The best part is our power is governed by the people who consume it. The boards are elected by we the consumer. That’s one reason wind is growing. Board members who promote wind are being elected.

People that want wind generation should definitely have a path to that. But in Nebraska we wanted it to be economically viable and avoid increasing costs to consumers when wind power was more expensive.

It is interesting to note the percentage of rural Nebraskans who want more wind farms has dropped from 75% in 2015 to 45% in 2022.

There is a wind farm proposal in my area. I don’t oppose wind energy but I do not support large subsidies. Nor do I support forcing landowners to participate actively or passively.

Something most non rural folks don’t understand is the potential for wind projects to destroy communities. In almost every case, there are people motivated purely by profit and people motivated by nature and generational historic land preservation. These two groups can never see eye to eye and neighbors who once were friends often become bitter enemies. I know that doesn’t matter to you, you are possibly unaware of it, but it matters in the communities this happens in. It matters to me.

I’ve stayed completely out of this fight because I’m not willing to destroy my relationships with people over money. I’m ambivalent as to whether or not enough people can agree for it to go forward. Currently the county commissioners have adopted 3 mile setbacks from non participating landowners. Also from nature reserves and migratory bird resting areas. Sandhill cranes and many waterfowl species are a big deal at the southern edge of the proposed site. I think 3 miles is a good compromise. Landowners were asking for 5.


I have friends that want money, and friends that want their land preserved. I understand both positions. I do not know ANYONE local who supports the site because of support for decreased emissions. It’s only about money. That’s their right even though I’ve found money is a dangerous motivation for making decisions where type 1 errors are possible. I’m referring to an error where we go through with something that can’t be undone even after later it’s discovered to have been the wrong decision.

Wind farms are controversial. At some point we will reach saturation point where no more land owners want projects. I’ll comment on that more later.

 

What renewable energy do you have? Growing rye is not renewable energy.

 

Well, it certainly is…any photosynthesizing organism is essentially producing “renewable energy”.

Remember the nutty source you had that erroneously claimed walking doesn’t require energy? If one were to let this crop mature and eat my rye and do work like walking to the store, then the rye would most certainly be renewable energy. Especially since it’s using very little fossil fuel energy in its production. Much less than the 7-10 fold average BTU of fossil fuel input per BTU of energy from food Americans eat.

This is why it’s so easy for you folks to be misled. You have no idea what energy is. What it’s used for. Where it comes from. If it’s renewable or not. It’s insane I have to start with grade school science level education in these posts. You should be able to figure out rye is certainly renewable energy just by engaging in a bit of critical thought.

But rye is not currently a replacement for common fossil fuels. It may be in the near future…

Biofuels. I produce biofuel feedstock and use biofuels. I produce biofuels so California can import them and claim to be “green”.

 

Not biofuels. ok, what’s your “renewable energy” called?

 

• Types of renewable energy.
• 
  https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/
  
• 
  Biomass
  • Wood and wood waste
  • Municipal solid waste
  • Landfill gas and biogas
  • Biofuels
• Hydropower
• Geothermal
• Wind
• Solar
• 
  
  
• Unlike other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted directly into liquid fuels, called "biofuels," to help meet transportation fuel needs. The two most common types of biofuels in use today are ethanol and biodiesel, both of which represent the first generation of biofuel technology.
  
  If your rye is not used to make ethanol or biodiesel, then it’s not a biofuel; and none of the others fit.
  
  
  
  

 

What? Biofuels are renewable energy.

What on earth are you getting at?

 

Is your rye used to make either Ethanol or Biodiesel? You seemed to say that rye isn’t currently used for that.

 

I did not say rye was a biofuel. I stated the EXACT OPPOSITE. Holy cow. I said it’s renewable energy and explained why. I specifically stated rye is not currently a substitute for fossil fuels. But it’s certainly a renewable energy source. To humans. But I guess you’ve implied you are an alien of some kind and not “natural”.


Do you know what photosynthesis is? Do you know where the energy in biofuels comes from?

California imports large quantities of ethanol from Nebraska. I supply a lot of feedstock for that ethanol. I also supply feedstock for biodiesel. But EVERYTHING I grow is a renewable energy source. Alfalfa is a renewable energy source for livestock. The rye is a renewable energy source for soil microorganisms! And you if you were to eat it….I don’t believe you are an alien. I’m quite certain you would digest the rye and utilize it mostly as energy in the form of Adenosine triphosphate.

As I said, it’s easy to snooker you folks because you have no baseline understanding of what energy is or where it comes from.

 

No. Corn is used to make ethanol. Soybeans are used to make biodiesel. Rye makes Adenosine triphosphate in your body and it propels your bicycle. (Oversimplified version). All renewable energy sources.

 

I won’t argue with the ADP angle. You’re the expert. But it doesn’t seem to fit the current definition of renewables. Does it qualify for the federal renewable energy tax credit?

 

Biology is not constrained by tax credits. Rye can be turned into ethanol. It’s just cost prohibitive to move high volume feedstock to processing plants. Corn is much more energy dense. So let’s say we do turn the rye into ethanol and put it in a car and drive a mile. That’s renewable energy because the rye can be (quickly, much more quickly than it can be turned into coal) grown again and used to power the car. But instead of making ethanol with the rye, we can eat it and hop on a bicycle and away we go just like the car. We can regrow the rye and power a car or a bicycle. The pathway from photosynthesis to the actual molecule doing work is different but the renewable energy source is the same.

Same goes for corn ethanol. We can eat the corn and ride a bike or turn it into ethanol to power a car. Either way it’s a renewable energy source used to do work. Same for soybeans etc. etc.

As a biologist I’m not really interested in what a government bureaucracy includes or doesn’t include in their definition. It has no bearing on the facts of the matter.

 

No problem. Like I mentioned, I just read a book called “The Lunatic Farmer” about a grass farmer in Virginia - livestock, poultry, etc, using older, traditional farming methods. I have a lot of respect for these methods. He even had some type of raking system for recovering carbon from cow manure Patties.

It can be called a lot of things, CO2 Sequestration, O2 replenishing, very low input farming, etc. Admittedly it’s kind of strange. Wood is considered a renewable fuel because it can be burned, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and losing a sequesterer of carbon. I agree it’s stupid.

 

As the consumer you and others hold all the power to reorganize agriculture to change it from being a net emitter to a net sequestering entity.

It doesn’t matter how many producers want to change to better practices if there are not consumers willing to purchase the product. Right now there isn’t demand for enough regenerative ag product to allow all producers to make a living in regenerative ag. Too many people still want doughnuts for breakfast, two soft drinks before a lunch of carbohydrate laden fries and sandwiches, and a dinner of pasta and farmed shrimp from a third world country. That’s incompatible with regenerative ag.

The problem is, it’s a big uphill fight because governments ALWAYS depend on cheap carbohydrate laden grains to maintain power. Even though commodity grains are detrimental to the environment and our health, government depends on them to maintain stable societies they can control. Every civilization has been based on commodity grains or equivalent (tubers, mast, etc.) to some extent.

So it’s going to be very difficult to get government to stop heavily subsidizing fossil fuel gobbling commodity grain production and transition to encouraging regenerative type production instead. Producers can help, but it has to be a grassroots movement at the consumer level at the end of the day.

On wood, I consider it a renewable as long as I’m allowing or facilitating as much or more regrowth as what I’ve used. Preferably a lot more than what I’ve used.

Using dead wood as a heat source really only speeds up the movement of carbon from the tree to the atmosphere. The majority of dead wood will decay into CO2 and methane eventually. But I agree if you aren’t intentionally sequestering more carbon than you are releasing by using the wood as an energy source it’s not really sustainable or a good biofuel.

Then you have to figure in effects of particulate pollution, especially in areas upwind of glaciers and significant snow masses as black carbon can really affect melting rates. Some glaciers are losing as much or more mass from black carbon heating (decreased albedo) as from ambient temperatures.

All biofuels used to replace fossil fuels can be problematic. Ethanol had its early times where it struggled to be a net energy source. And if one factors in how corn production not done “correctly” (“correctly” being closer to regenerative practice than standard commodity grain practices) can negatively impact soil carbon stores, erosion, and water infiltration, it doesn’t look as “renewable” as before. It’s like everything else—we can do it responsibly or irresponsibly. It has great potential for good, but only if we employ the technology responsibly.


I’ll have to look into the lunatic farmer. Sounds interesting.

 

I have a passive solar, bermed home. I have no furnace, AC, or ductwork. It utilizes literally tons and tons of thermal mass. It's sealed, with a heat recovery ventilator for fresh air intake. It works extremely well! I light about 5 wood fires per year, which are only required if there are a couple consecutive cloudy days of single digit temperatures. In Colorado we have no humidity. We are thinking of moving. I may build one or more of these in the Midwest, where I'll have to address humidity. I'm thinking of 4 or 5 small dehumidifiers through the structure, which will pipe the water outside into the foundation drain.

 

Utilization of thermal mass is probably the construction method most underutilized. It’s odd something so simple and effective is mostly ignored. People love their stick houses for some reason.

Yes, humidity is definitely a problem further east. Things I never had to worry about rusting in the dry climate now have to be protected etc. Do you know of any passive dehumidifier technology or would you just run on solar?

 

The numbers are unimpressive for renewable energy.
Wind and Solar Resource Availability Fatal Flaw
Roger Caiazza
Given the entrenched crony capitalists and special interests supporting wind and solar any shift in direction, even if necessary to protect health and safety, will be a tremendous lift.

As a retired electric utility meteorologist, I have been following issues associated with wind and solar resource availability for many years. My thinking has evolved to the point where I now believe that in a rational world it would be recognized that any electric grid relying on wind and solar is doomed to failure. This post explains why. . . . .

 

Something similar to this. Keys for my install:

https://www.grainger.com/product/80...64&ef_id=c1a3ce1b51461b7464d8a8446199b264:G:s

1. Ductless
2. Hard-piped water removal
3. Lower wattage than AC.

This unit is 8 Watts. Normal whole-house AC is between 15 Watts and 45 Watts. Yes, Solar would be upsized accordingly.

 

I wonder if anyone has come up with a system to utilize thermal mass to condense humidity out of living space air. Maybe it’s too energy intensive and has to much negative effect on ability of the mass to regulate temperature.

I’ll have to look into that.

 

Offshore wind power is dying in the US.
The Renewable Green Energy Disaster off the Northeastern US is Getting Worse
By Paul Homewood
…this is less than one per cent of the Biden goal of 30 GW, with just five and a half years remaining until 2030. . . .

 

That Guy must be a rabid anti- environmentalist, with a title like that. Or did your source modify the title again? Off-shore wind on the East coast is not indicative of a “Green Energy Disaster”. It’s been the case from the beginning, with offshore wind in those old- time traditional areas.

 

I never modify titles.
The data are the data.

 

More bad news for wind.
Industrial Wind Power: A Depleting Resource?
By Robert Bradley Jr.
Getting wind projects built is getting a lot harder. The low-hanging fruit, the easier access places are gone. . . .

"The New York Times article, “As Solar Power Surges, U.S. Wind Is in Trouble” (June 4, 2024), discussed the problems of wind problems, such as site depletion. But the article has nary a quotation, much less mention, from the legion of critics of the aged, doomed technology for economical, reliable grid power. . . . "

 

I like that - the referenced NY Times article states that “Solar power surges”. Wind is still up, just not as much as solar. I noticed that, again WUWT referenced an article of a vastly superior publication, and changed the title to support their low-fact biased agenda.

 

The NYT title: “As Solar Power Surges, U.S. Wind Is in Trouble”

Would you have preferred that? Looks to me like the WUWT title is more generous.