Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This is key. Good thing the American government is whole heartedly behind advancement in these fields and not clinging onto old tech, like coal.
So, today you learned that, WEF considers solar cheaper and a better investment than coal, that covering less than 1,5% of the Earth with solar panels could power the entire planet.
That's a lot of storage. I'm thinking a global power grid could significantly reduce the storage requirement. It's always sunny and/or windy somewhere.
Why is coal dying then? I’m just pointing out that Trump ran on bringing back coal and more plants have closed. It’s obsolete.
This is correct. I was trying to find the source to link and must have misread whatever I was looking at.
While coal production has definitely been on the decline, it's a huge stretch to say it's anywhere near dying or obsolete. Coal is still 30% of the US electricity mix. It is also currently experiencing a mini-boom in exports to Asia.
I don't think we came to the same conclusions. But cool.msommer said:
If as you imply there is something still wrong with renewable energy stopping implementation in the US, you might as well be wondering why companies in 2017 invested more than 360 bn in renewable energy when US providers only invested 40 bn (approx 11%).
I am not clear why it appears I am "implying there is something wrong with renewable energy stopping implementation in the US" I would love to put soilar panels on my house and get off the grid..would LOVE to...Won't happen in Michigan. Or Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio. etc etc.....So what are our options?
Seems simple enough. Jeez.....We should be doing this now!! Oh wait...Isn't that easy.
What happens when it isn't windy though?
Ask your local power company.
and ask to be spoonfed information
Fair. My questions go beyond what you can answer... I had the impression this was a discussion thread..and I wasn't aware this was just here to agree without questioning. But now I know. Thank you for your time and happy hump dayAsk your local power company.
Invest in power companies that do invest in renewables (for better future ROI)
Instead of just
The efficiencies from hydro, solar, and wind vs. creating thermal energy and then converting to electricity more than make up for the 8-15% loss in transmission lines.
What are you talking about? Loss is relative to distance, voltage, etc. The loss would be completely dependent on the specifics. The point is, you can’t just put massive solar or wind facilities in one spot and funnel that power around.
Whats the point? How many wind turbines do you think would be necessary to power a city like Toledo?
The loss of electricity in transmission lines is 8-15%. The use of fuels ( coal, natural gas, petroleum or nuclear) to create thermal energy, that heats water to create steam, that drives a turbine and makes electricity, is in itself, inefficient. In this process, barely 2/3 of the energy in these fuels make it to the power grid.
Is that loss the same over any distance? So a line that runs 5 miles loses the same electricity as one that runs 1000 miles?
Just making a correction. Coastline isn't necessary for wind farms. Drive in west Texas on I-10 between san antnio and el Paso and you'll see the worlds largest windfarm.
Yes..I see them everywhere.Just making a correction. Coastline isn't necessary for wind farms. Drive in west Texas on I-10 between san antnio and el Paso and you'll see the worlds largest windfarm.
I'm not trying to argue here. Just adding information.
I'm not sure if those posting these things are missing the point, or what. I don't think there is any debate whatsoever that solar power and wind power exist. Can we all agree this is true? For me, the better question is--is it feasible as a full solution for the growing energy needs of the US? I say no. I say we will always rely on coal and other fossil fuels. We use them today because, well mostly, they are cheap. And everyone in a market economy cares about cheap!
Sorry I'm on my phone..
The current delivery system probably wouldn't be used for long-distance transmissions, though. Right? Just multiplying the current loss rate times a higher distance isn't necessarily the right way to look at it, if long-distance transmissions rely on a different technology (with different loss rates). China and Brazil are transmitting a few THOUSAND kilometers via HVDC.
Fossil fuels are only cheap because the economic externalities of burning them have historically not been factored into their price.
Sure. If we build a new energy grid things could be different. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
I just don't get it. I'm being told by some here..That wind and solar are cleaner, cheaper, and safer. Yet it isn't taking over. That literally makes no sense whatsoever. Why would a power company CHOOSE to not use a safer, cleaner and cheaper form of energy to supply their customers. Don't you see hos weak of an argument that is? There most be something more.
Why is "a new energy grid" necessary? I'm no expert, but it looks like other countries are augmenting existing grids in this manner, not completely replacing whatever they had before.
TVA board meets tomorrow to determine how they will proceed, but it looks like their research suggests closing that plant in KY (the one that buys coal from Trump's friend) and another coal-fired plant in TN. We'll see what they decide.
Electricity from burning coal surely doesn't get lost in the wires, right (and the trucks/trains that drive the coals around surely doesn't use any energy, considering you are moving to a more olistic approach)?
Not what when burning coal?
Dude, you've been told that power companies invested 40 bn in renewable energy in 2017. You've even been shown a graph (if you clicked on the link) that showed the increasing investments in renewables since 2004. And for every piece of information you revert to "I just don't get it - why isn't it already here".
There you go!!! Total cost!! Excellent point! Coal must be trucked and/or railed to destination....Solar and wind, of course do not. Good point. Not sure the total impact there, but that's a good one. That's a lifetime cost of burning coal.
