Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Germany, which is both further north and cloudier than Michigan (not to mention with far less open space), gets 8.2% of its electricity from solar.

Good for Germany.

My point was, when compared to TX, MI is likely a better candidate for investment in other sources of renewable energy. Wind turbines have been sprouting faster than mushrooms in MI, for example. That may change due to some recent tech developments that make the two sources more equivalent in cost, but that may still be a few years away.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Good for Germany.

My point was, when compared to TX, MI is likely a better candidate for investment in other sources of renewable energy. Wind turbines have been sprouting faster than mushrooms in MI, for example. That may change due to some recent tech developments that make the two sources more equivalent in cost, but that may still be a few years away.

The best renewable system is not an either/or, it's both. Here's Germany's breakdown which results in ~50% coming from renewable energy.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The best renewable system is not an either/or, it's both. Here's Germany's breakdown which results in ~50% coming from renewable energy.

No doubt. When planning where an area will generate power for the grid, the planners will play to the area's geological and geographic strengths. I suspect there are parts of Germany where one generating strategy has more economic and output benefits than others.

At present, Mi gets most of it's electric capacity from nuclear. MI retired it's aging coal fired plants. That capacity was replaced by natural gas and wind, because that's what made the most sense for the generating potential per dollar. Solar will be in the state's future when the benefits of solar make more economic sense than other renewable sources.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No doubt. When planning where an area will generate power for the grid, the planners will play to the area's geological and geographic strengths. I suspect there are parts of Germany where one generating strategy has more economic and output benefits than others.

At present, Mi gets most of it's electric capacity from nuclear. MI retired it's aging coal fired plants. That capacity was replaced by natural gas and wind, because that's what made the most sense for the generating potential per dollar. Solar will be in the state's future when the benefits of solar make more economic sense than other renewable sources.

Agree (see, we can actually agree on something), though I'm a bit puzzled by you buying into plans that contradict your oft-stated climate change skepticism. That said, photovoltaic solar panels continue to get cheaper and more efficient and, unlike wind turbines, don't require much, if any, preventive maintenance and will likely continue to increase their market share in the future.

[Oerets]

""Solar Power Is Helping Some Puerto Rico Homes Avoid Hurricane Fiona Blackouts""




“Hurricane Fiona is just one more example of the urgency needed to transition to an electrical system that’s resilient and provides people what they need, which is rooftop solar and storage,” says Cathy Kunkel, an energy program manager at San Juan-based sustainability nonprofit Cambio PR. “Puerto Rico needs something that’s not going to go out every time a major storm hits, because we’re just getting more and more of them.”

https://dnyuz.com/2022/09/20/solar-p...ona-blackouts/



Someday there will be no other choice then going renewable. We have already gone way beyond the point of no return on preventing drastic changes. Survival mode will soon become apparent.

Then the blaming pointing fingers....... At those on the wrong side of history.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Oerets

""Solar Power Is Helping Some Puerto Rico Homes Avoid Hurricane Fiona Blackouts""




“Hurricane Fiona is just one more example of the urgency needed to transition to an electrical system that’s resilient and provides people what they need, which is rooftop solar and storage,” says Cathy Kunkel, an energy program manager at San Juan-based sustainability nonprofit Cambio PR. “Puerto Rico needs something that’s not going to go out every time a major storm hits, because we’re just getting more and more of them.”

https://dnyuz.com/2022/09/20/solar-p...ona-blackouts/



Someday there will be no other choice then going renewable. We have already gone way beyond the point of no return on preventing drastic changes. Survival mode will soon become apparent.

Then the blaming pointing fingers....... At those on the wrong side of history.

That someday is here and now and presently solar power generation is the most economical, negative being that power is only generated when the sun is up and about and it drops precipitously in the winter. Pumped storage is a very easy and viable storage option, but requires a lot more investment. I don't believe that storing power in batteries is an economical viable option but sodium based batteries are evolving.

Nuclear is by far the best option, but it takes years and years of planning and construction. Doubt we as a country will ever shed the disdain for nuclear power, yet we make submarines and other nuclear powered naval vessels!

Power from other sources, cost of fuel will continue to make it prohibitive and will also take years to commission.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

That someday is here and now and presently solar power generation is the most economical, negative being that power is only generated when the sun is up and about and it drops precipitously in the winter. Pumped storage is a very easy and viable storage option, but requires a lot more investment. I don't believe that storing power in batteries is an economical viable option but sodium based batteries are evolving.

Nuclear is by far the best option, but it takes years and years of planning and construction. Doubt we as a country will ever shed the disdain for nuclear power, yet we make submarines and other nuclear powered naval vessels!

Power from other sources, cost of fuel will continue to make it prohibitive and will also take years to commission.

I would not disagree at all with your assessment of nuclear energy (I worked in that industry for ~20 years), but for the apparent death of the repository at Yucca Mountain (upon which I consulted for several years). Now, we have no capacity (or even a plan) to deal with used fuel rods from nuclear plants beyond on-site storage. The US government took untold billions from the nuclear industry for studies and construction of a repository, but now we're back to square one even if the studies and construction at Yucca Mountain are largely complete.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I would not disagree at all with your assessment of nuclear energy (I worked in that industry for ~20 years), but for the apparent death of the repository at Yucca Mountain (upon which I consulted for several years). Now, we have no capacity (or even a plan) to deal with used fuel rods from nuclear plants beyond on-site storage. The US government took untold billions from the nuclear industry for studies and construction of a repository, but now we're back to square one even if the studies and construction at Yucca Mountain are largely complete.

I wonder why we do not reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods other than for economic reasons. India does this, so does Russia, Japan and China if my information is correct.

Storing is perhaps the cheapest option, put the rods in a lead casket, bury them deep underground and monitor the environment. But then politicians and citizens are suspicious of scientists and rightfully so. As a matter of civil engineering, this should be easier than digging a chunnel under a river or a bay.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

I wonder why we do not reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods other than for economic reasons. India does this, so does Russia, Japan and China if my information is correct.

Storing is perhaps the cheapest option, put the rods in a lead casket, bury them deep underground and monitor the environment. But then politicians and citizens are suspicious of scientists and rightfully so. As a matter of civil engineering, this should be easier than digging a chunnel under a river or a bay.

And many more countries, including France (the most successful and efficient of the nations who reprocess fuel). It's all about non-proliferation. Reprocessing fuel or using breeder reactors results in material more suitable for bomb-making (i.e., plutonium) than the the 3-5% enriched U235 used for nuclear fuel. We're afraid of diversion of those materials (or at least that's the argument that resulted in current US policy on the matter).

[Chicks]

Is Whell actually evolving!? His MAGAMoron pals are running around cutting cords off EV recharging stations and blocking them with their huge, gross-polluting diesel pickup trucks.