Slashdot Mirror
Wind, Solar Surpassed 10 Percent of US Electricity In March, Says EIA (thehill.com)
According to the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration, wind and solar produced 10 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. for the first time in March. The Hill reports: The Energy Information Administration's (EIA) monthly power report for March found that wind produced 8 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. that month, with solar producing 2 percent. The two sources combined to have their best month ever in terms of percentage of overall electricity production, EIA said. The agency expects the two sources topped 10 percent again in April but forecasts that their generation will fall below that mark during the summer months. Due to the way geographic wind patterns affect the generation of electricity, the two sources typically combine for their best months in the spring and fall. Annually, wind and solar made up 7 percent of electric generation in 2016, EIA said.
Solar and wind sound great until you eliminate the subsidies. Take away those subsidies and they become far more expensive. Once that happens, nobody will want to pay the extra costs and renewables will decline again. Like everything with the climate change agenda, it's a house of cards built on deception and lies.
Fresh meat! Give me a list of the energy sources that do not get subsidized.
Oil - yes, Gas yes, Nuclear? Bitch, please.
Come back and make your argument when the only energy source left that is getting any form of subsidy is alternative.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If by "tweaking", you mean removing subsidies, then that is a good thing. Subsidies are supposed to be a temporary incentive to innovate, not a permanent crutch.
Great. Let's take away subsidies from coal and oil, then.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Let's take away subsidies from coal and oil, then
Let's examine the subsidies of each:
Solar: Free money to pay for basic Research & Development, Secured loans to build factories, Free Training for solar panel installers, Tax breaks for creating "green" solar panel installer jobs, Free money to pay for half of each solar panel installation, and, artificially high rates utilities must pay solar panel owners, regardless of the utility's ability to actually use the electricity when it is generated.
Oil: Ability to deduct research and development costs from income.
The great thing about oil is the ungodly amount of tax dollars the end-user pays per gallon, as we reduce dependence on Oil, tax revenues will drop, and have to be replaced by collecting more money elsewhere, for example, by taxing electric cars to help pay for infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), erasing even the illusion that electric cars are "cheaper". (Oil companies earn less than 10 cents a gallon, the federal government collects almost 20 cents a gallon, and states collect up to 40 cents for each gallon of gasoline sold.)
Ken
Gasohol/Ethanol is among the dumber ideas for reducing our dependence on crude oil - the more ethanol you add to gasoline, the lower the MPG the car gets compared to 100% gasoline. Then there is the energy burned growing and harvesting the corn, processing the corn, transporting the additive, and then blending in the additive to create Ethanol.
The ONLY reason ethanol is a thing is because politicians forced it on the American consumer - it serves no other purpose than to further the goals of the politicians that keep it in place.
Ken
Let me know when Kansas can supply 100% of it's electrical needs through renewables when the electricity is actually needed - producing a surplus of electricity during the day does nothing to power lights at night.
Why is that relevant? The power grid is a large collection of power generation units that have different characteristics and are useful at different times for different needs based on the load at that moment. Having more options is a good thing.
You seem to be laboring under the illusion that one power source has to do it all. There is in fact no such rule.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Wind and solar have already become cheaper than coal and gas without subsidies. Renewables have already won.
Oil: Ability to deduct research and development costs from income.
You forgot ability to hand-wave away externalities like carbon release.
And then there's coal, ability to hand-wave away externalities like release of fissile nuclear elements into the air..
Meanwhile, solar panels made in/for the first world are required to be recycled (or at least you're paying for it), and to not leach if landfilled in spite of recycling requirements. And solar panels have paid back the energy cost of their production well within their lifetime since the 1970s. And wind power predates human production of electricity.
Since solar is required to account for its mess, it's only fair to count fossil fuels' being permitted to ignore their respective messes as a subsidy. Since we have no technology which can reasonably clean up what coal in particular has done to our environment, the subsidy for that particular fuel effectively amounts to an infinite amount of money.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Also look up the growth curve in solar installs.
Whatever. It's easy to double the installs year over year when it can't make even 2% of total output. Also, how long can this last? It's easy to cover up for solar power shortfalls when it can't make even 2% of total output. If all that solar power capacity disappeared tonight would anyone care? I'm pretty sure they don't because it disappears every night.
Solar thermal.
But how much does that cost? Not only does it have to be available 24 hours a day but it has to be cheaper than what we already use. I don't mean cost of installed capacity because that means next to nothing. I want to know how much it costs per watt-hour because that's what people really care about.
Do you think that solar thermal would be cheaper than, for example, nuclear? I'm certain solar thermal could ever be as "green", cheap, and reliable as nuclear. If solar thermal can't beat nuclear on carbon footprint and price then shouldn't we go with nuclear instead?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Actually, battery storage technology is on a rapid downward trend. I was reading about India, which has severe coal-related pollution problems, and just recently the price of solar has dropped there has dropped to be less than coal. Within five years the cost of solar plus battery will be less on a per kwh basis than coal. It doesn't mean they'll be able to conjure the change overnight, but it'll start things going that way.
You didn't think Elon Musk just wanted to be this century's Henry Ford did you? He wants to be this century's John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) too. That's why pulling out of Paris pissed him off.
Anyhow, until battery backup of renewables is economically feasible, which will happen soon, there's plenty of fossil fuel generated kwhs that can be replaced with renewables. This is not only good for the enviroment, it'll mean lower local energy prices. That in turn will mean jobs and industry returning to some of those pockets of America that never saw any recovery from the Great Recession.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.