- 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: No Blackouts in Texas? Thank Solar.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 10:54 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 6/29/23 at 10:54 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Look up "capacity factor".
Oh hell, here's a picture because reading definitely isn't your strong suit.
Nuclear is the only practical long term solution.
Oh hell, here's a picture because reading definitely isn't your strong suit.
Nuclear is the only practical long term solution.
2
Posted on 6/29/23 at 11:01 am to Clames
quote:
Look up "capacity factor".
you're trying to make a point that doesn't exist. Idiots will follow you, but it'll only make you the champion of idiots.
quote:
Nuclear is the only practical long term solution.
Only as a % base load. And nuke investment is going bonkers right now for the first time since ever.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 11:26 am to Clames
quote:
Look up "capacity factor".
What are you talking about, retard?
You're arguing against a point I haven't made.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 1:59 pm to billjamin
Only because certified idiots like you don't have the capacity to honestly accept the context here. Let me spell it out for you and your retarded pillow-biter buddy; off-grid is not a solution to the problem that was stated. Solar and wind are not reliable enough, not cost effective enough, and not energy-dense enough. There is absolutely nothing on the technological horizon that will overcome those shortcomings either. There is in fact a hard limit to the amount of solar energy that can be captured for a given amout of surface area, that limit is not negotiable nor is it sufficient for current energy needs much less future requirements.
Load-following nuclear power plants are a thing, so not "only".
quote:
Only as a % base load.
Load-following nuclear power plants are a thing, so not "only".
Posted on 6/29/23 at 3:18 pm to Clames
LOL tarded
Posted on 6/29/23 at 4:05 pm to WB Davis
Current screen-cap from my iPad … we’ve cooled off a tad today.
Sharing for the chucklehead who posted (several weeks ago) that DeSantis was an effeminate man for wearing boots in Florida—the country’s hottest locale. He said boots are doable in Texas, since our weather is accommodating (I paraphrase).
No clue how many days we’ve had 100+ temps in Houston … and it’s 10 degrees cooler here than in South Texas/RGV.
This post was edited on 6/29/23 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 6/29/23 at 4:45 pm to WB Davis
How much does this solar electricity cost to produce? Are there generous subsidies for solar? Do taxpayers have to overpay for all these solar projects? What happens to all these batteries after they are used? Wouldn’t it make more sense to use nuclear energy from an efficiency standpoint? I can’t help but feel like solar and wind projects are being propped up with our tax money. They aren’t the best route to go.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 5:03 pm to Sofaking2
quote:
How much does this solar electricity cost to produce?
Utility scale solar is about $1/W installed. The PPA price is set by the market.
quote:The asset owner gets 30% of the FMV as a tax credit. There are some grants and other local incentives but the ITC is the only one thats across the board.
Are there generous subsidies for solar?
quote:Taxpayers aren't paying for them, people who buy electricity are.
Do taxpayers have to overpay for all these solar projects?
quote:They'll be recycled.
What happens to all these batteries after they are used?
quote:Sometimes, not all the time. Nuclear costs a frick load to construct, even more to O&M and is hyper-centralization. There's a reason it was recently subsidized to promote investment.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to use nuclear energy from an efficiency standpoint?
quote:They get tax rebates. Just like every other form of energy generation, transmission, car manufacturer, Bucees, etc.
I can’t help but feel like solar and wind projects are being propped up with our tax money.
quote:Diversity of generation type and location is the best route to go. Anyone arguing for all or none of any 1 or 2 types is a moron and should be publicly mocked.
They aren’t the best route to go.
This post was edited on 6/29/23 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 6/29/23 at 5:06 pm to Clames
quote:
off-grid is not a solution to the problem that was stated
What do you think "off-grid" means?
Posted on 6/29/23 at 5:56 pm to GoblinGuide
quote:
can get behind letting the market do its thing a little more freely.
You good with getting rid of ethanol subsidies as well? I could see that getting some bipartisan support.
Lot more than just ethanol subsidies. I don't think it's practical for us to not be subsidizing our energy in different ways. Supporting a grid with a lot of options is a good thing...
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:11 pm to oklahogjr
Strengthen the grid and eliminate internal combustion engines. Kill TWO birds-- with one stone
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:21 pm to EKG
It's hot as an oven in Houston, but the RGV in an inferno. Laredo hit 115° yesterday, and Del Rio has been at or above 110° for two straight weeks.
It's a humanitarian crisis with the unchecked migration at the border. There aren't enough cooling stations to accommodate even close to everyone
It's a humanitarian crisis with the unchecked migration at the border. There aren't enough cooling stations to accommodate even close to everyone
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News