For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

Post by agentgumshoe » Sun, Apr 02, 2023, 1:43 PM UTC

thehappypm wrote: post #56

agentgumshoe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And wind requires immense use of rare metals that are often acquired through slave labour and create massive radioactive pools of waste. It is interesting to see the responses to Nuclear of 'too much up front/takes too long' while simultaneously patiently waiting out solar/wind 'it's getting there.' Interesting they also included biomass here as it is certainly not a carbon friendly process nor renewable. Too much 'w…

Wind turbines are mostly aluminum, no? And the magnets in the turbines are not required to be rare earth.

Post by stainablesteel » Sun, Apr 02, 2023, 1:45 PM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #19

It's so funny to read discussions of "whether or not renewables are viable for replacement of all or most of electricity needs in the U.S.". Here in Europe, we have it figured many years ago and are replacing fossil-fueled generation at a crazy rate, will probably push it to a niche use (gas peakers to fill void when there's neither sun or wind and before enough electrolyzers are put online), in less than 10 years.

Post by epistasis » Sun, Apr 02, 2023, 1:49 PM UTC

simplicio wrote: post #63

jillesvangurp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that's often overlooked in statistics like this is roof top solar because it's just not that easy to account for. In places like Australia, where double digit percentages of homes have solar and where building codes are actually being changed to require solar panels, this is a non trivial amount that is putting a lot of pressure on energy suppliers to adapt. Effectively whole states are running on solar whe…

I don't really understand the advantage of rooftop solar over just putting the same number of solar panels in a field somewhere. Id think it would be a lot cheaper to install the panels in one-place then having to distribute them to a bunch of differently shaped and oriented roof tops, and cheaper to have a few large inverters instead of a bunch of small ones.

Post by adgjlsfhk1 » Sun, Apr 02, 2023, 1:54 PM UTC

looping__lui wrote: post #83

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Driven by an ideological agenda of Ms Merkel and the green party, they shut down nuclear power plants (needed to cover our base load in chemical/manufacturing/whatnot) and replaced it with gas from Russia (don’t ask me why). You have been misinformed. They shut down nuclear to replace it with renewables. They already used Russian gas at the time.

You cannot replace nuclear with renewables in Germany. You cannot shut down production if the sun doesnt shine or there is no wind. There is a non-trivial amount of electricity that needs to be available 24/7 and there needs to be a source of electricity that can be ramped up quickly when demands spike or renewable isn’t delivering.

Post by melling » Sun, Apr 02, 2023, 1:56 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #44

melling wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent. There are only a few thousand coal power plants globally https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-po... They generate something like 25% of greenhouse gases. When should be expect these to be replaced, and get the 25% drop in emissions? Replacing over a billion ICE cars seems with EV’s is going to be so much more work, for example. An immediate 25% drop in emissions might even buy us a few…

> Replacing over a billion ICE cars seems with EV’s is going to be so much more work, for example. Instead we could replace ICE cars with no cars and get much more bang for our buck. A few changes to how we build so that you can walk/bike within 15 minutes for many daily needs would reduce energy consumption, save families money, still allow for a car, and everyone would be much happier and healthier. Cars for all tr…