Slashdot Mirror
Texas Has Enough Sun and Wind To Quit Coal, Rice Researchers Say (houstonchronicle.com)
According to new research from Rice University, Texas has enough natural patterns of wind and sun to operate without coal. "Scientists found that between wind energy from West Texas and the Gulf Coast, and solar energy across the state, Texas could meet a significant portion of its electricity demand from renewable power without extensive battery storage," reports Houston Chronicle. "The reason: These sources generate power at different times of day, meaning that coordinating them could replace production from coal-fired plants." From the report: Texas is the largest producer of wind energy in the United States, generating about 18 percent of its electricity from wind. Most of the state's wind turbines are located in West Texas, where the wind blows the strongest at night and in the early spring, when demand is low. The resource, however, can be complemented by turbines on the Gulf Coast, where wind produces the most electricity on late afternoons in the summer, when power demand is the highest. Solar energy, a small, but rapidly growing segment of the state's energy mix, also has the advantage of generating power when it is needed most -- hot, sunny summer afternoons.
In the summer, Gulf Coast wind generation could overtake West Texas wind capacity from about 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. when sea breezes kick in, Rice research showed. From about 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., solar power average capacity also could exceed wind generation in West Texas, which increases as evening turns to night. In the winter, winds in West Texas strengthen and generation increases, dropping off about 9 a.m., when solar energy begins to ramp up. "It's all a matter of timing," said Dan Woodfin, senior director of system operations at the state's grid manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Weather, however, remains unpredictable. Texas would still need battery storage and natural gas-fired power plants to fill in gaps when, for example, winds might slacken earlier than expected.
In the summer, Gulf Coast wind generation could overtake West Texas wind capacity from about 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. when sea breezes kick in, Rice research showed. From about 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., solar power average capacity also could exceed wind generation in West Texas, which increases as evening turns to night. In the winter, winds in West Texas strengthen and generation increases, dropping off about 9 a.m., when solar energy begins to ramp up. "It's all a matter of timing," said Dan Woodfin, senior director of system operations at the state's grid manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Weather, however, remains unpredictable. Texas would still need battery storage and natural gas-fired power plants to fill in gaps when, for example, winds might slacken earlier than expected.
Yes, but do they have the balls?
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Versus the cost(s) we face will undoubtedly face later.
Want to place a bet on which one will be greater?
Or will you just plug your ears and sing "la la la la la...." ?
A use for west Texas.
As the Gulf Coast tends to see tropical systems of varying strength from time to time.
Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms and, if damaged, will need repair before resuming operation.
Same for transmission lines that would be carrying said energy across the State.
Just set up road signs on generators and allow the locals to shoot at them (like they would anyway)
That was unbearably ignorant. Her logic could just as easily justify a future with no energy at all, and considering that she demonstrates no understanding of the complexities of which she comments, it's unclear how she decides between a future of locally generated power and one where we live in caves. Just how is local generation equipment made when we no longer have an industrial society? Seriously, she's an idiot.
Just tax pollution and renewables will pay for themselves.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
If only someone could invent the idea of two modes of operation!
Humanity owes you a debt of gratitude for identifying this issue that no engineer ever thought of before.
Because there's no such thing as batteries.
If only someone could invent the idea of two modes of operation!
I guess nobody has ever heard of variable pitch turbines or "prop feathering" (which works as well for wind turbines as it does for propellor driven aircraft).
Because there's no such thing as *Grid Scale* batteries.
FIFY
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
If Nicole Foss advocated for using less energy in that video, I couldn't stand the ignorance long enough to see it. Fact is, she predicted a non-industrial future based on unsustainable energy production which she justified by junk science she didn't understand and who's numbers were old, out of date and did not support her claims. She didn't "advocate' for using less energy, she predicted the collapse of known civilization which would force it.
Talking about faith based, to believe her you have as willfully ignorant as any religion.
You know, technology improves. Perhaps Nicole Foss should realize that.
We get a great deal of hurricanes in the gulf coast, making the real world utility of that much coastal based wind impractical.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
This is all about the potential. It is also has the potential to run the state on nuclear without coal. How about algae power? Gerbil power?
Pay for extensive battery storage too? Who is going to pay for all this?
Who's going to pay to clean up after fossil fuels?
Low cost energy that stays on 24/7 at a low price is what a productive and export friendly state needs.
A predictable climate is what humanity needs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
production of renewables does not pollute?
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that.
Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Talking about faith based, to believe her you have as willfully ignorant as any religion.
touche...
You know, technology improves.
Can I get an "Amen!"?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Here's the airspeed indicator of a very popular plane, one I studied thoroughly, the Cessna 172:
https://fsxtimes.files.wordpre...
The stall speed (minimum speed Vni) of the 172 is listed at 48 or 53 (flaps up or down). The Vr, minimum speed for level flight, is 55.
The green arc, extending to 129, is the normal operating range. 129 is Vno, the Maximum structural cruising speed.
The yellow arc is speeds that must only be hit in smooth air, and with great caution. "Maximum structur cruising speed"" means this in this range, above 129, turbulence can break the aircraft apart.
So the airspeed at which the aircraft may break is 2 1/2 times it's minimum speed. Hurricanes are 150MPH - a heck of a lot more than 2.5 times the 10mph sea breeze! (Hurricanes are turbulent, btw).
The red line is the Velocity Never Exceed, Vne. At 158 structural failure of the aircraft is to be expected.
So you want to make an analogy to prop-driven planes? They are destroyed at three times their minimum operating airspeed.
If you want to stick to the prop plane analogy, that suggests that a turbine designed for 10MPH would have structural failure at 30MPH. Still like that analogy?
Re "climate" won't keep the power on day and night at a low price.
Only having low cost power when the sun is up and then wind is blowing results in changes in power costs.
Thats when the natural gas-fired power plant gets to set any price it wants.
Thats no good for a state that wants to export to the world and needs low cost energy production 24/7.
Who is going to pay for new solar, wind and extensive new battery storage?
Thats going to add to the cost of power. Power that's only low cost when then sun is out and the wind speed is correct.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Because there's no such thing as *Grid Scale* batteries.-> FIFY
Or... maybe there is now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There's no pollution in the disposal after its life expectancy?
Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle.
What is the thermodynamic efficiency of renewables, 100%? If not 100%, can the byproducts of its use be used for something else
Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient. The energy we harvest from these renewable energy sources are a sliver of what Earth gets from our star, Sol. That which is not collected is reflected (helping reduce the impact of excess CO2) or blows by and continues acting as part of Earth's global weather system.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
At the risk of escalating this "debate":
...
Could wind turbines withstand Category 5 hurricanes"
This is one of many articles about wind turbines handling high winds. They actually have a "hurricane mode" into which they can be placed.
Article in NewScientist" on failure of wind turbine in the North Sea. And I quote:.
Much of the evidence was burned, and Infinis and Vestas disagree on which was the key initial cause of the destructive fire: Infinis believes it was the loss of yaw control, while Vestas thinks brake drag more the root cause. While Vestas has produced its own report, an expert was not available to discuss its findings with New Scientist. Vestas has since fixed the brake problem. In future, the feathered rotor will not have the brake applied in high winds; it will be free to turn if it needs to. “Vestas no longer do this and have modified all turbines at Ardrossan to prevent application of the parking brake, which is now only applied during maintenance,” says Infinis spokesman Andrew Dowler."
Guess what? The article also says: When wind speeds reach 88 km/h turbine blades of wind turbines are usually twisted, or “feathered”
I stand by my assertion. I will agree that airframes are susceptible to failure at airspeeds that are only modestly higher than normal operating airspeeds, however propellers (l.e. turbine blades) are much more robust - again, like propellers on aircraft.
For grins, I tried calculating tangential velocity of propeller tips on a Cessna 172, given a prop diameter of 76" and an RPM of 2800. My math may not be correct, but I've checked it in Excel and I think it works out to 622 MPH. By your reasoning, you wouldn't even make it off the runway before the propeller self-destructed.
Airframes and propellers have totally different strength characteristics, no?
...have Red Dead Redemption 2 and soy sauce, they will never give up rice.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
Planes fly. Windmills do not.
So planes have to be built fairly lightly, but windmills can be much more solid. More like the propeller, which on a 172 is near supersonic at the tips.
The windmills simply feather their blades much like the variable pitch prop on the plane you move to after you have mastered the 172.
There are issues, mainly that the wind does not blow steadily from one direction.
For small wind systems, the tower itself is typically hinged so that it can be dropped in a storm. Probably not practical for the bigger systems.
Any hydroelectric power station with a dam can function as a battery. Low flow during the day, high flow during the night.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Boy, that's stupid. Do you feel stupid? You should. Texas leads the nation in wind power. And the oilfields in the Permian Basin are about to give us more oil than Saudi Arabia. But please continue to spew your outdated, bigoted nonsense in public where people can see you.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around).
Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics.
Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.
You're desperately arguing against a system that has been proven to work on societal level for many millenia, providing zero citations for your incredible claims. Because on the systemic level, no one cares about a handful of exceptions. It's the principle that rules.
And in "everyone in their small tribal enclave" system, everyone is at constant tribal conflict with their neighbours. Citation: human history.
Well so did I but I wouldn't call it good.
"She’s just arguing about the loss on efficiency of needless energy conversion into electricity and the problems with centralized production and distribution."
She argues about more than that and she makes more profound points than that, but she's also frequently wrong on that particular point. For example, she claims that local energy production could operate a home without an inverter. That's just stupid and it demonstrates her poor understanding of the technologies for which she pretends to have expertise. No one forces consolidation/centralization of energy production and it's not universally done. It happens because it works better, contrary to her arguments.
Yes, there are problems with "centralized production and distribution". They've been known about forever, have received the benefit of enormous engineering effort, have been largely solved and are not new to renewable energy.
"I don’t know about you, but I’ve dreamt of being off grid since I was a child. The idea of being off grid gives me a sense of security and simplicity. If you have food + shelter + energy + community you can tell the rest of the world to fuck off."
Your fantasy world is dependent on an industrialized society that can afford to produce the conveniences that give you the illusion of independence and self-sufficiency. Accepting her fatally-flawed logic means that doesn't exist. Sure you will be "off the grid" because there will be no grid. Hope you enjoy your hunter gatherer existence since there won't be manufacturing, electric, transportation, etc.
You know, there are problems with centralized processing of waste, too so perhaps you should dig a hole in your back yard to take a crap in. Problems like this are well understood and attract the efforts of professionals because they are important. Just because the internet enables kooks like this to present arguments doesn't make them valid.
A predictable climate is what humanity needs.
Are you god? Can you know control the climate?
Reaction the first: Thou art god. We humans have controlled the climate, to a degree. Now we need to do it intelligently.
Reaction the second: Of course not. We humans can't literally control the climate, we can only actually alter it. Which is why we need to stop doing things which are throwing it out of whack, because if we break it, we probably can't fix it.
The truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes. I think it's closer to the latter than the former, which is why we should stop screwing it up.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We have 50 year old stuff, and that's after almost all of it has been replaced many times meaning about all that is still original is the foundations for the original plant footprint.
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around). Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics. Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.
Assume that you build a wind park that lasts 25 years during which it has an almost inconsequential carbon footprint. If you then renew that wind park after 25 years and replace it with one that lasts 35 years because of improvements in material science during the proceeding 25 years the old one was chugging along, whatever carbon footprint those two wind parks had from production to recycling will be dwarfed by the carbon footprint of operating a coal fired power plant for 60 years. There is just no way you can argue that building coal fired power plants causes the same or even less of a carbon or other pollution footprint than wind and solar. Plus, our problem is not the carbon footprint caused during production or recycling. It is the carbon emissions generated during decades of service life that is the problem and here a wind park has undeniable advantages. The carbon footprint of a wind turbine in production is about 11 g CO2/kWh, the carbon footprint of a coal fired plant is 870 g CO2/kWh (Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2018...). The carbon footprint of a coal fired power plant is almost two orders of magnitude greater than that of a wind turbine alternative. That makes the choice between the two types of power plant kind of a no-brainer especially since the wind turbine generated electricity is cheaper than coal generated electricity.
the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years
Doubtful, given that many manufacturers offer 30+ year warranties. In fact experience tells us that 40+ years is not unreasonable to expect.
Wind turbines are in the 20 year range, but now the technology is more mature we are at a point where we will want to replace them rather than remove them.
But in any case, the manufacturing process is far less polluting than the lifetime pollution created by any other source of electricity.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Except for the ones in Hawaii, and Australia, and Japan, and Europe, and a bunch of other places.
Wikipedia has a nice overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Few people move from CA to TX literally "due to high taxes and regulations"
Based on Census data, people moving out of CA are families with kids with only a high school education and lower-income are going to TX. High costs of living including housing are the chief reason people are leaving.
Those costs are, in part, because of government regulation and taxes that limit supply and increase building costs for new housing.
No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.
The entire government apparatus that makes people leave CA wasn't put forward by a single vote. People do vote for high taxes and regulations. Some are proud of being "civilized" to have such government services. It's a choice and they are free to make it just as other people are free to leave that state because of those costs.
It is accurate to say that people, particularly poor families, are leaving CA to places like TX because of taxes and regulation that make it too expensive for them to live there. There is evidence and data to support that statement.
What bothers me the most about CA migration is that the people leaving CA bring CA with them. They are increasing housing costs and in many instances (that I have seen personally) bring the politics and culture that created CA that they left.
Those wind farms in Texas aren't there due to some rugged, individualistic, pull yourself up by your bootstraps get'er done Texan ethos. They are there because some Texas businessmen found a stream of money in the Federal budget. So perhaps they weren't exactly told how to generate power, but were sure encouraged by Federal dollars.
"Federal Alternative Energy Subsidies’ Expiration Date Causes ‘Wind Rush’ in Texas", https://www.texasstandard.org/...
and from 2013, so a little dated:
"Texas Ranks #1 for Federal Wind Subsidies", https://www.texaspolicy.com/te...
I lean libertarian, but this article indicates that there really is a role for government to play in renewables that does not boil down to the President writing big checks to his political donors. IMHO, one of the proper roles of government is to enable markets. Building a road system enables farmers to bring their crops to the cities, and for cities to sale their manufactured goods to farmers. It doesn't make sense for either group to build the roads by themselves, and having a third party build, own and control the roads puts to much power in the hands of individuals, and creates innefficient roads since the builder would have to negotiate terms with individual land owners to build the roads in the first place.
The current situation with renewables is that small amounts of power are created at different times of the day in different areas. Getting the power from the western plains to the eastern factories to take advantage of all that wind is problematic (drive across Indiana and you see a large portion of the windmills stopped even though the wind is vigorous). The biggest boost the Feds could give to renewables is to put the federal electricity distribution grid on steroids. Once I can sell my wind produced energy on an open market the size of the US, I'd never let them to stop. And I'd probably put up more for even more passive income.
I know there is currently a federal grid, but it should be beefed up and anyone allowed to participate in the market in the same way that anyone can set up a trucking company.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I think that long term this is going to happen. We've already seen a drastic reduction on coal as natural gas took over and wind has helped make that story even better. I'm looking forward to some great things happening in the state of Texas.
But, alas, as a coastal state with a lot of refinery operations, not sure that's going to change much.... there's just too much money there today (emphasis on today).
It's difficult to make any drives on I-45 without seeing many many fan blades in transit.
Solar? Well, I think that we'll see advancements there and the possibility of solar farms.... it's just more of a "land grab" than wind is. But who knows? If a power company sees enough profit, they'll pay the big bucks to get the land required. If Democrats take the White House next election, maybe they'll coerce the power companies so that they'll have no choice, either go solar (major) and earn less money or die completely (a precarious position given that even Democrats love electricity).