The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Cheerful Charlie]

The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.

 

[Tigers!]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germany's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

I note that Germany gets 9% of its electrical energy from solar. How much of that is generated during the night?
If solar cannot produce 24x7 it is should not be called reliable.

 

[Tigers!]

Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

Summary of H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

www.congress.gov

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.

The Victorian parliament, under pressure from the greenies, in 1982 passed an act that forbade the damming of the Mitchell River, the last river in Victoria worth damming.
The greenies in Australia have never met a dam they didn't like. Notwithstanding its benefits as green energy.
Might be different in other countries

 

[Tigers!]

Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

Summary of H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

www.congress.gov

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.

That will be expensive. Watch the rentiers raise the price of renewable energy.

 

[bigfield]

Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

Summary of H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

www.congress.gov

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.

The Victorian parliament, under pressure from the greenies, in 1982 passed an act that forbade the damming of the Mitchell River, the last river in Victoria worth damming.
The greenies in Australia have never met a dam they didn't like. Notwithstanding its benefits as green energy.
Might be different in other countries

Are you sure that happened? It doesn't come up on legislation.vic.gov.au.

Seems to have been overshadowed by the Tasmanian environmentalists who lobbied the Federal government to prevent the Franklin River from being dammed.

https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/franklin-dam-and-the-greens

After its election, the Hawke government introduced new regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 that protected the Franklin River, which had been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in December 1982.

I suppose one more hydroelectric dam in Tasmania would slightly increase the percentage of renewable energy on the NEM, but it's never going to be anything more than a small supplement to more scalable technologies, which means it probably wasn't worth the environmental damage.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

Summary of H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

www.congress.gov

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.

That will be expensive. Watch the rentiers raise the price of renewable energy.

You mean like the price of oil and natural gas? Our natural gas bill has doubled over last year. And has increased electric bills. You know, supply and demand.

 

[bilby]

The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.

Your inability to refute my arguments is and indication that they are probably right, not that they are unworthy of your greatness.

And no part of my position in any way necessitates that the US build more dams; That would be supportive of your false claim that the mass storage demanded by wind and solar can possibly be achieved. It’s another factor against your position.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.

Your inability to refute my arguments is and indication that they are probably right, not that they are unworthy of your greatness.

And no part of my position in any way necessitates that the US build more dams; That would be supportive of your false claim that the mass storage demanded by wind and solar can possibly be achieved. It’s another factor against your position.

You really have not posted any arguments. The U.S. is building lots of solar and wind. I have told you why. In the U.S. nuclear is not being built in large amounts of projects. I have told you why.

The U.S. has 55 nuclear plants with 93 reactors. These produce 20% of U.S. electrical needs. To reach 100%, the U.S. would have to built 465 new reactors. To get to 50%, 232 new reactors. At about $8 billion each reactor would be about $1.8 trillion.

Obviously, the energy industry does not have that kind of money and is not going to take on that debt which means no profits for 15 or 20 yearss. If you cannot understand the issues here, I cannot make it more plain and simple.

If because of the GOP we cannot pass a Build Back Better Plan, we sure are not going to get trillions for government owned and run nuclear reactors. Dream on!

 

[bilby]

The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.

Your inability to refute my arguments is and indication that they are probably right, not that they are unworthy of your greatness.

And no part of my position in any way necessitates that the US build more dams; That would be supportive of your false claim that the mass storage demanded by wind and solar can possibly be achieved. It’s another factor against your position.

You really have not posted any arguments. The U.S. is building lots of solar and wind. I have told you why. In the U.S. nuclear is not being built in large amounts of projects. I have told you why.

I know why.

The US elected Donald fucking Trump as President. Politically stupid behaviours that are directly harmful to the people who support them are not particularly uncommon nor particularly remarkable.

Nor do they constitute evidence for what the optimum course of action might be.

The U.S. has 55 nuclear plants with 93 reactors. These produce 20% of U.S. electrical needs. To reach 100%, the U.S. would have to built 465 new reactors. To get to 50%, 232 new reactors. At about $8 billion each reactor would be about $1.8 trillion.

And a quarter of that if you didn’t multiply the likely costs by four.

But of course, most of that ‘cost’ is the cost of getting past stupid opposition, and needless regulatory hurdles. It could be made vastly cheaper by the stroke of a pen.

Obviously, the energy industry does not have that kind of money and is not going to take on that debt which means no profits for 15 or 20 yearss. If you cannot understand the issues here, I cannot make it more plain and simple.

I understand the issues just fine. When people deliberately make something as expensive as possible, and then argue that we can’t do it because it’s too expensive, they are indulging in political shenanigans that tell us nothing useful about what the right move will be.

If because of the GOP we cannot pass a Build Back Better Plan, we sure are not going to get trillions for government owned and run nuclear reactors. Dream on!

Yeah, your country is totally fucked.

This isn’t stopping South Korea, or France, or Sweden, or Ontario, or Taiwan, or even the UAE from doing the smart thing. Or any other part of the 95% of the planet that’s not the US.

The USA has a simple choice to make: Lead; Follow; or Get out of the way.

If your country is too stupid to spend money on a solution that works, because a solution that doesn’t and cannot work looks cheaper when you do a half-arsed analysis, then you are going to have a shit time of it. Sucks to be you.

Enjoy your blackouts and soaring energy bills.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Trillions of dollars nobody has. And by 2050, a lot of existing reactors will be reaching end of life and will decommisioned. We still can't even solve the nuclear waste problem. Maybe we can ship al that nuclear waste to Australian and bury it all in the Outback.

 

[skepticalbip]

The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.

Your inability to refute my arguments is and indication that they are probably right, not that they are unworthy of your greatness.

And no part of my position in any way necessitates that the US build more dams; That would be supportive of your false claim that the mass storage demanded by wind and solar can possibly be achieved. It’s another factor against your position.

You really have not posted any arguments. The U.S. is building lots of solar and wind. I have told you why.

Yup. Because some politician said that solar power is the solution to our power needs. Politician worship is more pathetic than the Jesus freaks.

The U.S. could pave the the entire country from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Mexico to Canada with solar panels and no one would have any power after sunset to allow them to switch on a lightbulb.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Again, solar and wind are popular since they can be built relatively cheap and quickly. They start paying profits quickly. These technologies are mature enough to work today, and are attractive business opportunities with low risk. Nuclear energy cannot offer good and sure money quickly. Solar and wind are exce)ent examples of disruptive technologies.

We keep seeing GOP attempts to hobble renewables. Such recently passed laws in South Dakota making it illegal for state agencies to buy electricity from renewable sources. Or laws in South Carolina banning creating electric vehicle recharging stations along South Carolina state highways. Or numerous attempts to ban offshore wind projects. Or offer continuing incentives to build renewable projects while offering massive incentives to the oil industry.

 

[skepticalbip]

Again, solar and wind are popular since they can be built relatively cheap and quickly. They start paying profits quickly. These technologies are mature enough to work today, and are attractive business opportunities with low risk. Nuclear energy cannot offer good and sure money quickly. Solar and wind are exce)ent examples of disruptive technologies.

We keep seeing GOP attempts to hobble renewables. Such recently passed laws in South Dakota making it illegal for state agencies to buy electricity from renewable sources. Or laws in South Carolina banning creating electric vehicle recharging stations along South Carolina state highways. Or numerous attempts to ban offshore wind projects. Or offer continuing incentives to build renewable projects while offering massive incentives to the oil industry.

The question is what is the best way to assure sufficient and reliable power available constantly, not what is the cheapest even it it can't do that. Again, I would suggest you compare France's and Germany's opposing philosophies on electrical power. As a side note, electrical power is much cheaper (and cleaner) in France than in Germany.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We will not have a competent energy policy until the last republican politician is strangled with guts of the last right winged media pundit.

 

[skepticalbip]

We will not have a competent energy policy until the last republican politician is strangled with guts of the last right winged media pundit.

Is it your worship of politicians that has you believing that solar panels are magic?

 

[No Robots]

We keep seeing GOP attempts to hobble renewables. Such recently passed laws in South Dakota making it illegal for state agencies to buy electricity from renewable sources. Or laws in South Carolina banning creating electric vehicle recharging stations along South Carolina state highways. Or numerous attempts to ban offshore wind projects. Or offer continuing incentives to build renewable projects while offering massive incentives to the oil industry.

Whoa! Is all that true? Do you have a few links?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

Latest figures for Germany are a joke.

The problem here is that renewables aren't reliable. You need other generators to take over when the renewables don't work. They're still using Russian gas to make up the shortfall.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.

Dams aren't exactly green and anything worth damming has already been dammed--there's almost no expansion possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trillions of dollars nobody has. And by 2050, a lot of existing reactors will be reaching end of life and will decommisioned. We still can't even solve the nuclear waste problem. Maybe we can ship al that nuclear waste to Australian and bury it all in the Outback.

It's purely a political problem. We have no technical problem dealing with waste.

 

[Tigers!]

Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

Summary of H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

www.congress.gov

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.

That will be expensive. Watch the rentiers raise the price of renewable energy.

You mean like the price of oil and natural gas? Our natural gas bill has doubled over last year. And has increased electric bills. You know, supply and demand.

In Australia our gas/oil and consequently energy costs are exploding. Due in large measure to the foolishness of our politicians making decisions without thinking beyond the next election (3-4 years).

On a side issue when will the increase in renewables cause the much mentioned downward pressure on energy prices? 10% of supply? 20%, 40%, 60%, never?