Alternative Energy: Viable?

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Also chiming in to agree with tjf, but I will say that Musk has done some good:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/19/16431312/elon-musk-richard-branson-clean-energy-puerto-rico-solar-batteries-microgrid

There is really no chance of that restoring power to more than a few sites.  The job is just too big.  Still, it would be pretty embarrassing to the PR power authority if Utuado had a reliable solar-based microgrid while Ponce or even San Juan were still struggling to maintain reliability.

mm

Milo Maltbie wrote

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Also chiming in to agree with tjf, but I will say that Musk has done some good:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/19/16431312/elon-musk-richard-branson-clean-energy-puerto-rico-solar-batteries-microgrid

There is really no chance of that restoring power to more than a few sites.  The job is just too big.  Still, it would be pretty embarrassing to the PR power authority if Utuado had a reliable solar-based microgrid while Ponce or even San Juan were still struggling to maintain reliability.

mm

Right, but nice to have backups for hospitals, etc.

That'd be a nice infrastructure project in the mainland, too, but there's no money for that, only money for tax cuts for millionaires & billionaires.

Its an island.  The currents running all around and the winds off shore seem like a pretty reliable source to run turbines.  As they rebuild homes they should put shingles on that are dual purpose, capturing  solar. The additional cost above a traditional roof should be subsidized.  Turn that place into the winter get away for all Americans.   I have been there 3 times and other than the shitty infrastructure it is beautiful.  

hey MC

Hope you like mining to fulfill your green dreams

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328

PTex and I have posted this repeatedly the “green” energy is far from good for the earth

You want to argue tonight bud?

Here's some things you might want to consider:
1. I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and that article is behind the paywall
2. The opinion section of the Newscorp-owned Wall Street Journal is rancid shit, on par with Newscorp's other holdings (NY Post & Fox News)
3. I thought you loved things like creating jobs, using American made products, and putting US manufacturers to work
4. The law of supply & demand still applies here. If the raw materials required to make solar panels (or wind turbines, or batteries, or whatever) become rare, they'll become more expensive. That isn't happening, and companies are finding that solar panels are cheaper than burning fossil fuels:

https://thinkprogress.org/renewables-now-cheaper-than-new-coal-or-gas-across-two-thirds-of-the-world-c4980412cb53/

5. Technology will improve, new renewable sources will become more efficient, and energy storage solutions will get better and more innovative

Okay, so having said all that, I now have a question: why are you so desperately clinging to fossil fuels? Do you love huffing gas fumes or something? I'm trying to figure out if you actually *want* our society to advance technologically or if your backwards, retrograde conservatism has been distilled down to its essence: "Old Stuff = Good. New Stuff = Bad."

A simpler question than MC's.....what's the alternative?  You know the status quo is not sustainable.

Drill baby drill

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2019/8/12/20801602/colorado-electric-vehicles-2019-renewable-energy

First, electrifying vehicles would reduce carbon more than completely decarbonizing the state electricity sector, pushing state emissions down 42 percent from 2018 levels by 2040 — not enough to hit the targets on its own, but a huge chunk. Second, electrifying vehicles saves consumers money by reducing the cost of transportation almost $600 a year on average.

D.B. Cooper wrote

A simpler question than MC's.....what's the alternative?  You know the status quo is not sustainable.

The total system efficiency of an electric car is only slightly better than a gas car and on par with the latest generation of high mpg cars. I’d be more interested in electric cars if we were building nuclear plants and hydro to fuel them. The problem with wind and solar is that you need so much spinning reserve that runs on fossil fuel, the decommissioning of nucs and the need for spinning reserve is why Germany has the highest rates and is actually producing more green house gasses than before.

The whole green initiative is being pushed by companies that want to sell all this shit and don’t really care about the environment, they just found a bunch of suckers to buy the narrative. China is laughing their asses off at us while the pollute like crazy building and selling solar panels and parts for wind turbines to us. It’s a racket.

It's hard to know the on-the-road actual efficiency of internal combustion cars, but it's probably way less than 35% or 40% they can do on the test stand. It should be easy for electric cars to match that.

But thermal efficiency isn't really the point. The real issue is to take carbon out of the economy. If you stick with fossil cars, you never get carbon out of transportation. If you switch to electric cars, you can transform the whole energy economy.

Reliable use of wind and solar energy require far more storage than is currently available, and parked cars and eventually their spent batteries could provide a lot of that. Electric cars could also absorb the excess solar energy that would otherwise de-stabilize the electric system. At least theoretically, the combination of renewable energy and electric vehicle works better than either one on its own.

Someone is going to object that batteries will require a metric shit ton of thoranium oxide or something that will sink the whole project. That's just a technical problem that's impossible to solve, until it isn't. It's no different than when my grandfather thought that Model T's would never take off because you would need an British shit ton of naphthalene to make it all work.  

mm

Here's an electric vehicle that has never needed a charge:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest-ev-never-has-to-be-recharged

Back in the day trains took coal from West Va to the port of Hampton roads, they were electric. The energy the down hill loaded train would make the energy required to pull the empty train back up the grade to the mines. No batteries required. There are applications that make sense.

PeeTex wrote

Back in the day trains took coal from West Va to the port of Hampton roads, they were electric. The energy the down hill loaded train would make the energy required to pull the empty train back up the grade to the mines. No batteries required. There are applications that make sense.

How did they store the electricity they generated on the downhill until they needed it to go back up? In their pockets? 🤪