If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Obama to nuke coal power plants   (cnn.com) divider line 295
    More: Interesting, Obama, coal power plant, climate change skeptics, coal-fired power plants, senior administration official  
•       •       •

2412 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2013 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 03:29:00 PM

Corvus: Power cells like bloom boxes, or heating up water to run generators can make them 24/7 power generation can solve much of that.


Which is my point of having to rely on other items to help with the non-baseload source.  Pumped hydro is another great example.  You are basically switching from wind/solar to hydroelectric generation.
 
2013-06-25 03:32:28 PM

Corvus: Well that and it destroyed like the entire fishing and farming industry for a region for maybe centuries. That is a little ignored in that calculation.


Open pit coal mining isn't pretty either. Neither are the former residents of Centralia, PA terribly happy.
 
2013-06-25 03:39:18 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: But Hannity tells me everytime gas goes up 10 cents a gallon that Obama pressed the EPA signal button in his office to bring about another round of "crushing regulations" on the energy industry...


But gas prices have gone down for the last two weeks.  That means Obama is lowering them because he loves us, right?
 
2013-06-25 03:46:28 PM

chimp_ninja: netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid. What you're talking about is a local issue.

Was it written on toilet paper by your elaborate wiping system?

Solar and wind are grid-connected all the time.  Denmark got 24% of its generation capacity from wind in 2008, and their plan is to hit 50% by 2020.  Spain gets more capacity from wind (20%) than it does from coal.  Germany's grid is already at 5% from PV, with a plan to go much higher, and they have shiatty weather.

Please expound upon the laws of physics and engineering that apply in Europe but not in the United States.  Is it the metric system?


i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com
 
2013-06-25 04:02:12 PM

Corvus: runin800m: He said you couldn't power a city with solar today, not that your excess solar power doesn't go to the grid. He also happened to be absolutely right. It's not feasible to power a city with solar power right now, at least not primarily with solar power.

No he did not he said it can't go on a grid, in fact he just said it again.

netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.

Also even if it can't run everything on solar (which you could) why does that mean we shouldn't do more solar? It's a BS argument. Are you saying that if something isn't the 100% solution we should not help it? That's a stupid argument.


that always seems to be a 'conservative' argument-
Welfare cheaters? Slash those benefits!
Food stamps traded for drugs? Screw little Sally, let's get rid of 'em!
Cash for Clunkers? Why, don't you know Herbert's cousin's wife's son's girlfriend tried to do that, and they rejected her! Something about improper filling out of forms. Farking bureaucrats!
 
2013-06-25 04:03:47 PM

simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.


Yep.
 
2013-06-25 04:04:34 PM
But we need coal to power our vast Naval Forces!
 
2013-06-25 04:04:36 PM

netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.


Actually, we're still waiting on those citations asked of you.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:29 PM

Corvus: HeadLever: chimp_ninja: My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass > hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.

Not a bad list, but just recognize that your first two are not baseload and will need to have backup with items 3 though 8.

Power cells like bloom boxes, or heating up water to run generators can make them 24/7 power generation can solve much of that.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/22/first-large-scale-247-solar-plan t- to-be-constructed-in-u-s/


The SolarReserve power plant utilizes what is called thermal energy storage to store heat collected from the sun, which is then utilized by the power plant to boil water and produce steam. The steam then turns a steam turbine which generates electricity. This is a how a solar thermal power plant generally works, but keep in mind that there are different types of solar thermal power plants, some of which are not steam.

...

You might have guessed by now that this type of power plant is able to provide electricity at night, and all week, because it stores heat in the form of salt that is released in the evening so that the plant can continue to generate electricity when it is dark, cloudy, or stormy. "This solar technology is a genuine alternative to baseload coal, nuclear or natural gas burning electricity generation facilities," Kevin Smith, SolarReserve's chief executive, said in a statement.


ah, I did not know how they were storing energy. Salts make storage. How farking cool is science?
 
2013-06-25 04:12:36 PM

whidbey: Actually, we're still waiting on those citations asked of you.


He probably has you on ignore, sparky.
 
2013-06-25 04:13:14 PM

whidbey: Granted, tougher standards might put a few coal plants out of business.


what are tens of thousands of people out of work when it serves the greater good!  besides, if each and every one of them quit their jobs and went on food stamps, it would stimulate the economy.
 
2013-06-25 04:17:44 PM

Aarontology: Free market competition from natural gas is doing a nice job of that already.


Came to say this.

And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.
 
2013-06-25 04:19:03 PM

theknuckler_33: chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.

I like to be optimistic, but I think you meant 'incrementally', not 'exponentially'.


No, pretty sure he meant "exponentially".

www.renewableenergyworld.com
 
2013-06-25 04:20:27 PM

o5iiawah: whidbey: Granted, tougher standards might put a few coal plants out of business.

what are tens of thousands of people out of work when it serves the greater good!


Citation needed

and

Because jobs>health

got it.

besides, if each and every one of them quit their jobs and went on food stamps, it would stimulate the economy.

Yes we know you hate social services, especially those designed to make sure people have food to eat.

Did you actually have any real arguments to bring to the thread, or did you just feel especially petty and mean-spirited today?
 
2013-06-25 04:20:39 PM

o5iiawah: whidbey: Granted, tougher standards might put a few coal plants out of business.

what are tens of thousands of people out of work when it serves the greater good!  besides, if each and every one of them quit their jobs and went on food stamps, it would stimulate the economy.


How many jobs are you willing to trade your family's health for?
 
2013-06-25 04:20:50 PM

TheMysticS: Salts make storage. How farking cool is science?


Yeah, molten salts can hold much more thermal energy than most other compounds as you need to get it to about 1200 degress C to melt it. With these elevated temps, you can use more efficient turbines for the re-generation process.  Problem is that insulation becomes very much an issue.  With the higher temps and the extended time storage considerations you will have higher termal losses if you don't design the containment insulation correctly.  It drives up the capital costs of these facilities but they are definatly pretty cool.
 
2013-06-25 04:22:04 PM

chimp_ninja: Geotpf: chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.

The thing is, costs are something like this:

Gas < coal < nuclear (expanding additonal plants, with very limited availablity) < renewables < oil < nuclear (building new plants)

The last two don't happen in the continential United States due to the high costs.  AFAIK, there are zero commercial oil power plants in the continential United States, and there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in many decades.

Those costs are distorted by economies of scale and market inertia.  Coal is only cheap because we hide $62B/yr in our hospitals.  Fracking is only cheap if we pretend the water isn't impacted, and exempt them from regulations that every other industry has to comply with.  Neither prices in the climate impact.

Also, look at the cost of PV as a function of time:

[blogs.scientificamerican.com image 448x308]

Think coal and gas are going to do that as we dig deeper and deeper for that next score?

What side of this curve do you want the United States on?

[blogs.scientificamerican.com image 448x299]

All I'm hearing from the far right is to wait for the right half of that chart.  Except if we do that, we'll be importing all of our panels from countries with better foresight, and we'll be building our new grid while they're already profiti ...


We don't make money on the panels, we make money by selling the equipment the panels are manufactured on. http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us-leads-china-in-sol a r-exports_100010480/
 
2013-06-25 04:23:41 PM
25.media.tumblr.com

If your industry has the ability to do massive damage to yourself, your employees, and/or the surrounding environment/civilians, you should be regulated as hard as nuclear power is.

/TMI death toll: 0
//Meanwhile, 1 dead, 73 hurt in LA Chemical plant, 6/13/2013
 
2013-06-25 04:25:18 PM

meat0918: chimp_ninja: Geotpf: chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.

The thing is, costs are something like this:

Gas < coal < nuclear (expanding additonal plants, with very limited availablity) < renewables < oil < nuclear (building new plants)

The last two don't happen in the continential United States due to the high costs.  AFAIK, there are zero commercial oil power plants in the continential United States, and there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in many decades.

Those costs are distorted by economies of scale and market inertia.  Coal is only cheap because we hide $62B/yr in our hospitals.  Fracking is only cheap if we pretend the water isn't impacted, and exempt them from regulations that every other industry has to comply with.  Neither prices in the climate impact.

Also, look at the cost of PV as a function of time:

[blogs.scientificamerican.com image 448x308]

Think coal and gas are going to do that as we dig deeper and deeper for that next score?

What side of this curve do you want the United States on?

[blogs.scientificamerican.com image 448x299]

All I'm hearing from the far right is to wait for the right half of that chart.  Except if we do that, we'll be importing all of our panels from countries with better foresight, and we'll be building our new grid while they're al ...


Ok, I misread something.

I reread my link. We make a lot of money from selling panels too.
 
2013-06-25 04:27:24 PM

meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.


I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?
 
2013-06-25 04:28:12 PM

HeadLever: Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.


Like usual you are completely full of shiat.  Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.
 
2013-06-25 04:32:10 PM

whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?


Most of the PNW terminal plans require trains full of coal to travel through Portland.  We have been steadfastly giving them the finger.  I think they are giving up.
 
2013-06-25 04:32:51 PM

Ringshadow: If your industry has the ability to do massive damage to yourself, your employees, and/or the surrounding environment/civilians, you should be regulated as hard as nuclear power is.


Exactly.  Taco Bell should have 10 permits they have to obtain every day just to open thier doors.
 
2013-06-25 04:33:38 PM

whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?


The Coos Bay, OR ones did, as well as the Port of St. Helens, OR.
 
2013-06-25 04:36:00 PM

Hollie Maea: whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?

Most of the PNW terminal plans require trains full of coal to travel through Portland.  We have been steadfastly giving them the finger.  I think they are giving up.


Can't imagine why...

Oh wait, yes I can.

Didn't PDX already get burned once by the promise of a steady stream of income from exporting coal to Asia, only to get stuck with the cleanup after the market went bust last time?
 
2013-06-25 04:36:29 PM

Hollie Maea: HeadLever: Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.

Like usual you are completely full of shiat.  Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.


And overall, Transmission and Distribution losses are only 6.1% nationwide.

http://www.nema.org/Products/Documents/TDEnergyEff.pdf

This might come as a shock to you, but we don't have to transmit at 120V like Edison used to do anymore.
 
2013-06-25 04:37:16 PM

meat0918: whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?

The Coos Bay, OR ones did, as well as the Port of St. Helens, OR.


Awesome. Now all we need is for the Kelso and Bellingham backers to go bust.
 
2013-06-25 04:38:51 PM

meat0918: Hollie Maea: whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?

Most of the PNW terminal plans require trains full of coal to travel through Portland.  We have been steadfastly giving them the finger.  I think they are giving up.

Can't imagine why...

Oh wait, yes I can.

Didn't PDX already get burned once by the promise of a steady stream of income from exporting coal to Asia, only to get stuck with the cleanup after the market went bust last time?


Yep.  Early 80s.
 
2013-06-25 04:43:44 PM

whidbey: Now all we need is for the Kelso ... backers to go bust.


Unfortunately, that one has a bit better of a chance since I'm sure the mouthbreathers up in Vantucky would be thrilled to have coal rolling through town on the BNSF tracks up there.
 
2013-06-25 04:45:45 PM

Hollie Maea: Like usual you are completely full of shiat. Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.


Breaking out the ad homs I see.  The lossses are mostly a funtion of the voltange and load (amps) needed through the line.  If you having to buy power on a 345KV line with a 1000MW load, you losses can be 3 to 5 percent over 100 miles. It doesn't take too much distance to eat up 50% in that circumstance.
Just because one scenario is designed specifically for this type of transmission does not discount my point at all.

Average transmission losses in the US is typically in the neighborhood of 6.5%.
 
2013-06-25 04:51:34 PM
I read the plan and I give it a rating of "meh". Better than nothing, probably about as much as could be realistically expected, almost certainly short of what's necessary, but it's okay I guess.
 
2013-06-25 04:52:05 PM

Hollie Maea: And overall, Transmission and Distribution losses are only 6.1% nationwide.


Yep, that is due to the fact that most power is pretty well distributed evenly through the US.  It doesn't suprise me at all.
 
2013-06-25 04:54:58 PM

Hollie Maea: whidbey: Now all we need is for the Kelso ... backers to go bust.

Unfortunately, that one has a bit better of a chance since I'm sure the mouthbreathers up in Vantucky would be thrilled to have coal rolling through town on the BNSF tracks up there.


And oil. I love having my illusions about Vancouver being a liberal city utterly destroyed.
 
2013-06-25 04:55:35 PM

Agneska: So let me get this straight. Like a zombie crawling out of a graveyard, the US economy is sluggishly digging itself out of a major recession. Millions of men, women, and children are now living below the poverty line. The problem? There are no jobs.

So...

Obama Wilson has decided to hack a sector of the economy that produces energybuggy whips, thereby causing a loss of jobs and higher energy costs that will surely increase what Americans pay in utility bills, consumer goods and services.

All of this driven by the tenuous global warming theory and fueled by dubious and costly 'Green' technology.

Well, smack my arugula and call me Solyndra an asshole.


FTFY.

Claiming that "jobs" is the reason we can or can't do something is an ineffective argument, as not all jobs are created equal.  Factor in all the available externalities to determine the true costs of activities and you will find that there are certain jobs that are too expensive to have, either in a literal or moral sense, and others that return the investment many times over.

/Asshole.
 
2013-06-25 04:57:27 PM

Hollie Maea: Vantucky


Oh. You meant OUR Vantucky, not the Canadians'...My bad.

Maybe they should just draw their wagons into a circle and revert to the name Fort Vancouver.
 
2013-06-25 05:00:39 PM

FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]


I was going to post that in the SCOTUS/VRA thread.
 
2013-06-25 05:01:16 PM

Hollie Maea: Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.


Also, don't forget that the Pacific Intertie is DC and really helps with that section being so efficient.  AC typically has higher line losses.  So basically, you are cherry picking your example.
 
2013-06-25 05:16:20 PM

HeadLever: Breaking out the ad homs I see.


You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem attack.

I'll save you the effort:

Example 1:  Your argument is invalid because you are stupid.

This is an ad hominem.

Example 2: You are stupid because you have a bunch of invalid arguments.

Not an ad hominem.
 
2013-06-25 05:21:09 PM

HeadLever: Hollie Maea: Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.

Also, don't forget that the Pacific Intertie is DC and really helps with that section being so efficient.  AC typically has higher line losses.  So basically, you are cherry picking your example.


Let's see...you said:

Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.

Then, when I noted that it is possible to transmit long distances at very high efficiencies, you claim I am "cherry picking" by using a technology that is well suited to efficient long distance transmission. THAT'S THE FARKING TECHNOLOGY WE WOULD USE IN YOUR EXAMPLE YOU STUPID FARK.  "No fair using the best solution available for this problem that I claim can't be solved!" That's your argument?  Really?

You really truly are a profoundly stupid person.  Note: That wasn't an ad hominem.
 
2013-06-25 05:22:35 PM

chimp_ninja: What side of this curve do you want the United States on?


Can I borrow your time machine? I assume you must have one to know the costs in 2030, and aren't doing anything as silly as wildly extrapolating into the future based on limited past trends.

Oh, and you'd be importing panels anyway. Having a head start means little - the West had a huge head start on industrialisation, but where does the mass manufacturing happen now?
 
2013-06-25 05:23:09 PM

Hollie Maea: ad hominem. . .

invalid arguments

Ad hominem is a personal attack, nothing more.  I notice you didn't actaully have the honesty to refute my actual point I made.  Mostly because you can't.  Again, your cherry-picked example used is not a valid rebuttal and my arguments are more valid than yours.
 
2013-06-25 05:26:49 PM

Hollie Maea: THAT'S THE FARKING TECHNOLOGY WE WOULD USE IN YOUR EXAMPLE YOU STUPID FARK.


Really, we have high voltage DC lines all over?

www.cleanlineenergy.com
Looks like we better get busy installing more HVDC or all move to the west coast.  Lol, you are floundering a bit aren't you?
 
2013-06-25 05:28:16 PM

HeadLever: I notice you didn't actaully have the honesty to refute my actual point I made.


You made two points.  First, you said that the high efficiency for a specific example I gave doesn't count because "cherry picking".  Then you argued that the high efficiency I gave for the whole country doesn't count because it's the whole country.

Here's an idea:  How about YOU show me a cite for a single transmission line that has losses of "50% or more".
 
2013-06-25 05:31:47 PM

Hollie Maea: You really truly are a profoundly stupid person. Note: That wasn't an ad hominem.


Yep, still an ad hominem as my point still stands.  BTW, you debate like you are 10 years old.  The personal insults really don't make you point any more valid and just makes you seem - well - 10 years old.
 
2013-06-25 05:32:54 PM

FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]


This image is as old and tired as...well, you.
 
2013-06-25 05:34:22 PM

HeadLever: Really, we have high voltage DC lines all over?


Two things:

1.  I never said we have a lot of HVDC lines.  What I said is that this is what we would use if we wanted to transmit huge amounts of power long distances.  Because that's what they are best for.  Once again, your assertion was that we COULD build a big line to transmit wind power from the Midwest, but that if we did build such a line it would have high losses.  I gave a specific example of technology that could and would be used to do such a thing.  Do you really think that "we haven't built very many so far" is a real argument? Would you say that we can't build a Thorium fuel nuclear plant just because we haven't built very many of them yet?

2. You can get just as high efficiency with high voltage AC lines--you just have to have slightly bigger wires to account for skin effect.  For AC lines, the wires are a bit more expensive.  For DC lines, the transformers at each end are a bit more expensive.  So there is some length and some capacity at which DC becomes more cost effective.  Efficiency has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-06-25 05:35:36 PM

whidbey: Yes we know you hate social services, especially those designed to make sure people have food to eat.


Actually I dont.  What i hate are people who make moronic assertions about them.  Since you admitted these coal miners are all out of jobs, perhaps you'd like to tell the class where you expect them to work.

Philip Francis Queeg: How many jobs are you willing to trade your family's health for?


Right, because taking people's jobs and (and thus healthcare) away is a great way for us to have a healthy society.
 
2013-06-25 05:37:25 PM

HeadLever: Yep, still an ad hominem as my point still stands.


Nope.  You were wrong the first time and you are still wrong.  "Ad Hominem" doesn't mean that you insulted someone.  It means that you used an insult as a point of argument.

I have addressed your arguments with facts.  The insults are just a side observation that are not intended to bolster my argument.

Found a transmission line with 50% losses yet?
 
2013-06-25 05:37:48 PM

chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.



The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.
 
2013-06-25 05:40:08 PM

netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.


Yes and demand in the US peaks on hot sunny days. Which actually makes solar the best form of energy to meet demand. Solar both can make more during the highest demand AND can also be used to store power and run 24/7.
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report