- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wind Power Production Drops Despite 6.2GW of Added Capacity
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:00 am to DomincDecoco
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:00 am to DomincDecoco
quote:
Cant be by itself... if they went full out starting today to get a nuclear plant online, you're talking 2040 before it putting energy on the grid, prob at a cost of 30-50 billion
Robert Bryce (the writer from the OP article) is a big proponent of what he calls natural gas to nuclear (N2N). That actually would reduce emissions and help build baseload on our grid.
quote:
Is the industry perfect? No. But you're being completely disingenuous by not pointing equal blame to our failing grid infrastructure that can't handle the power.
I’m absolutely aware our infrastructure is in an awful state. I’m helping merely point out that money is being invested in the wrong areas. If massive amounts of capital are going to wind projects instead of building out transmission or new baseload power generation, it is a massive waste.
Wind and solar having low energy density requires them to be built out in open spaces requiring many acres of land. A nat gas or nuclear power plant can be plopped right next to a city on a smaller piece of land. You have fewer losses by the transmission being a shorter distance and you have less voltage drop for the power over that distance.
Not sure if you were stating an opinion either way but our infrastructure definitely sucks. It’s suffered from lack of investment for decades.
2
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:08 am to bapple
quote:Different buckets B, different buckets. The power companies have one god, the bottom line/shareholder value. One is federal dollars, one is companies not giving a shite and letting a sleeping dog lie while paying out shareholders. I've worked for both. I did major line rebuilds for the utility in CO and I've built wind farms. I know this world better than most.
I’m absolutely aware our infrastructure is in an awful state. I’m helping merely point out that money is being invested in the wrong areas. If massive amounts of capital are going to wind projects instead of building out transmission or new baseload power generation, it is a massive waste.
quote:What land are you referring to, the land out in the middle of nowhere that maybe has a farmer who can plow right up to the 5' beauty ring at the base of a turbine? Or is otherwise not being used at all, for anything? Of course they're not in cities. They minimize losses by having a collector substation and a short gen-tie to a step-up POI. It's not hard.
Wind and solar having low energy density requires them to be built out in open spaces requiring many acres of land
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:58 pm to bapple
quote:
You have fewer losses by the transmission being a shorter distance and you have less voltage drop for the power over that distance.
Industry is RUSHING over to HVDC, im right in the middle of it currently. Less loss, more reliability, more homogenized grid.
However, wind will never ever be anything to powergen other than what filling a few pales on a rainy day is to supplying water to a city
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 10:00 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News