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

Not really changes. There are many bins of that type all over the Midwest that date back as far as the 1940’s and ‘50’s. It’s old tech.

I have one bin with a full drying floor that was built in the 1980’s. It has the option of running propane burners between the fan and the bin, but the burners haven’t been used for probably 20 years. The rest of my bins have ventilation tunnels with multiple fans.

Virtually all bins that don’t have full drying floors have a ventilation tunnel or two in the floor with one or multiple fans to force air from the bottom of the bin through the top. Again, that’s been going on since the advent of electrification of farms.

The further east one goes in the US the more necessary it is to use fossil fuels to dry corn. It’s partly simple physics based on humidity levels. Also, biology kicks in as well based on humidity. Farther east corn can’t be left to dry in the field before harvest because microorganisms and fungi will destroy or damage the corn in the ear. in my area generally one can let corn dry before harvest in the field. However that does open you up to more risk of field loss from ear drop and/or stalk breakage.

We have made a bit of progress in addressing in field drydown through genetic selection. I intentionally choose hybrids based on their ability to dry down in the field because I don’t want to use fossil fuels for drying. Others make the choice to maximize yield over drydown and use more fossil fuels. It’s a trade off. Full disclosure, at times grain I deliver to elevators for sale is still a tad high in moisture to meet their standards so they will dry it a percentage point or two using natural gas.

Overall though, eastern parts of the country will require more energy inputs to keep harvested crops in condition (dry enough not to spoil) than western and midwestern areas (excluding humid parts of the west coast of course).

As average temperatures rise, growing seasons lengthen, and relative humidity levels decrease from “climate change”, the potential exists to use less fossil fuels for drying corn. It’s one of many negative feedback loops (unrecognized by those only accounting for negative aspects of AGW) that can lead to homeostasis if we leverage it correctly. But producers can’t be encouraged to leverage this opportunity if consumers aren’t aware enough of the opportunity to hold producer’s

Agricultural holds the keys to solutions to excess atmospheric carbon. Especially if consumers were willing participants in solutions. It has to be grassroots from the consumer because ag input companies are too heavily invested in fossil fuel centric inputs that simultaneously use fossil fuels and actively decrease carbon sequestration pathways. And politicians are heavily influenced by lobbyists from these companies. But that’s a bit off topic…

 

Apologies for not proofreading. The above post, last sentence, paragraph seven should read:

But producers can’t be encouraged to leverage this opportunity if consumers aren’t aware enough of the opportunity to hold producer’s accountable.

 

This is just semantics and juggling numbers, trying to frame numbers in terms to make them look nicer than they are.

Imagine if I had a job and last year I earned 10,000 as a taxi driver. Then this year, I also had a little side gig as an actor playing a small part in a TV commercial and pulled in an extra 200.

I could say that 100% of my "added" income was from acting.

Even though in reality only 2% of my income came from acting.

 

And this is why I never let anyone know what my qualifications are but rather let my posts speak for themselves and although Media_ Truth is new to the forum they have already demonstrated an ability to think and post in academic and scientific terms

 

Got any counter stats? No? Then the post is just wasted space

 

Lols! You are talking to people who think that Whatsupwiththat has a higher level of science and truth than the IPCC lols!

 

Yep! And my home state is about to supply the wherewithal
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/townsville-vanadium-battery-electrolyte-facility-opens

 

I don't need any counter stats. I'm just pointing out that the stats presented have limited meaningfulness, and I want to make sure people realize what exactly those numbers mean.

 

There is nothing ambiguous about the article at all. Of the new electric capacity added in the US, over 50% of it was from solar. Even though it shouldn't be necessary, I will provide this link that goes into more detail.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/03...ted for over 50% of annual capacity additions.

When President Biden signed the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act into law in August 2022, the U.S. solar industry was given the green light for takeoff, and it has shattered records—adding 32.4 GW of new electric generating capacity last year, or 51% since 2022. According to the U.S. Solar Market Insight, Year-in-Review 2023 by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie, this is the first time in 80 years that a renewable electricity source has accounted for over 50% of annual capacity additions.

In summary, solar added 32.4 GW of generating capacity. So the total added capacity of all generating sources should have been about 65 GW.

 

One more interesting fact from that previous link. Over 2/3 of the added solar capacity was utility generated, while the other 1/3 came from 800,000 American homes in the residential sector.

According to the WoodMac SEIA report, every segment saw year-over-year growth in 2023, bringing total installed solar capacity in the U.S. to 177 GW. The utility-scale sector alone added 22.5 GW of new capacity. Despite challenges in the residential sector including changes in net energy metering (NEM) policy and high interest rates, nearly 800,000 Americans added solar to their homes.

Also, that total solar capacity in the US, of 177 GW is pretty impressive, when you consider there was very little solar prior to 2008. The typical nuclear power plant is one Gigawatt. So that's quite a lot.

 

Good for you. So long as the costs to build and operate the factory are included in the cost of renewable energy.

 

Why is the cost of this in Australia an issue to you in America?

 

It's an issue everywhere in terms of the falsity of claims about cheap renewable energy.

 

And without a critical analysis of those statists it is opinion only

 

Is it? You don’t know how much these batteries cost let alone compare them with the cost of a new fossil fuel plant

 

That doesn't matter in the slightest, and I don't care. My point is that renewable energy advocates never include the cost of back-up systems (whether power plants or batteries) in their cost claims. My critique aims at the dishonesty, not the numbers.

 

Speaking of batteries:
New York And California Getting Totally Lost With Energy Storage
March 08, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  For a number of years, I’ve been observing demands of activists and promises of politicians that we transition our electrical grid to being supplied mainly by the intermittent renewables, wind and solar, with all large dispatchable sources (fossil fuel and nuclear) banished.
  
  
• Early on, I thought it was obvious that such a transition would inevitably mean that the only way to make the grid function full-time would be energy storage — on a vast scale never before contemplated or attempted.
  
  
• How much storage, and at what potential cost? This is actually an arithmetic problem, somewhat cumbersome but conceptually very elementary, and easily done with today’s widely-available spreadsheet programs. To help matters along, in December 2022 I produced my energy storage Report (“The Energy Storage Conundrum”), laying out the main options and the calculations involved. My conclusion was that I could not see any way that this could be done at remotely feasible cost. (Anybody who disagrees is welcome to prove me wrong.) Today, if somebody wants to effect an energy transition in a state or country, they can just look to my Report to quickly understand the nature and extent of the energy storage challenge.
  
  
• What has actually occurred since December 2022 is that our “climate leader” jurisdictions — in the U.S., that would be New York and California — have moved forward with energy storage proposals that any moron can easily see will not work.
  

READ MORE

 

No facts and no stats

 

Don’t they? Funny I think I have seen those cost estimates somewhere but since it was not my claim I am not going to worry about it

 

Apparently you did not read the post. In addition to numerous fact-and-stat-filled links therein, there's this:

Once again, it’s the usual MW instead of MWh. But assume that that 52,000 MW in 2045 will be 4-hour duration batteries, so 208,000 MWh. At $150/kWh, that will cost California a cool $31.2 billion. And how long will that last if it starts fully charged and the wind is calm at night? This federal Department of Energy webpage gives California’s current annual electricity demand as 259.5 TWh, or 259,500 GWh. Divide by 8760 (hours in a year) and you get average demand of about 30,000 MW. So the 208,000 MWh of storage will last about seven hours. You’ll need about a hundred times that amount — at a cost of $3+ trillion — to get the 720 hours of storage that you will need.

 

They don't exist. Your position is based on a falsehood.

 

Why is what goes on in America an issue to you in Australia?

 

They don’t need facts. They have opinions and feelings.

 

History will prove this whole thing wrong and a big mistake. It’s a lie to begin with to claim he added 32.4 GW of “new” electricity. You can research electricity generated in America very easily to prove we are not adding but simply maintaining production levels of electricity.

The green energy push has stopped new electricity production since Obama. supporting article.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained...y-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php


This is a huge problem. Much larger even than I believe people are seeing. Not only are we stopping from making *new electicity*, we are replacing reliable electric sources with literally the most unreliable electricity production methods. supporting article follows

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close



This unreliability and no *new energy* will be a very bad mixture with a booming population and border crisis issues. We will not keep up with demand and it’s very evident in California that literally advocates not to charge cars during parts of the day. Our energy position is nothing to be envious of. And the presidents in history that have incentivized this behavior will be looked at poorly in the history books.

 

I doubt the person you were responding to can back up their claim against the facts you presented. Hence the short response by the poster. Don’t worry, real people see what you are showing. The reliability of renewables are unequivocally the worst performers in the market. By a long shot.

This along with the fact we haven’t added to our electrical production since George bush JR will inevitably be a very large problem that will likely have to be dealt with during a bad time.