- 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: Solar Fails in Texas in Cold
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:49 am to MidWestGuy
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:49 am to MidWestGuy
quote:
No, those advances occur (and will continue to occur) because we have a better grasp of physics!
Right. And battery technology will too.
1
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:56 am to Penrod
quote:
My life has seemed like constant amazing advances,
Were any of them in alchemy? You're correct that seemingly insurmountable tech problems are frequently overcome, but advancement sometimes runs into physics and it does just stop.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 7:05 am to MidWestGuy
Just wanted to add that China currently has 39 nuclear facilities in the pipeline and the US has a federal goal to have 10 under construction by 2030.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 7:07 am to SantaFe
quote:
Coal is King
Not in the United States
Posted on 1/29/26 at 7:09 am to Joshjrn
quote:Well here’s the fun part on that.
All intermittent renewables are waiting for the next big leap in battery tech.
Where are you going to get the rare earths needed to produce them?
I’ll give you a hint where significant deposits are. Starts with Green, ends with land.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 7:46 am to llfshoals
Posted on 1/29/26 at 9:48 am to GeauxtigersMs36
quote:
Why the push to go completely electric with no infrastructure amazes me.
It was part of a larger push to get people into more localized "15-minute cities", which was a part of the great reset and "you will own nothing and like it".
Posted on 1/29/26 at 9:59 am to Crimson Wraith
quote:
Solar Fails in Texas in Cold
Say it isn’t so.
But, how well did the progressive liberals’ smug superiority keep them warm???
Posted on 1/29/26 at 10:07 am to Penrod
quote:
quote:
No, those advances occur (and will continue to occur) because we have a better grasp of physics!
Right. And battery technology will too.
Of course battery tech will continue to improve - incrementally. But I don't know of any kind of leaps-and-bounds ideas out there that will allow it to be practical to store enough to feed most of the grid demand overnight plus allow for days of low sun.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 1:00 pm to MidWestGuy
quote:
plus allow for days of low sun.
As I posted in response to you already, we won’t need batteries to make up for excessive no-sun days; we’ll startup gas turbines for that. Given that, you only need batteries to get us through about six hours of darkness/dawn/dusk between the time the California solar goes dark and the Florida solar wakes up. Cure that problem and we could easily get about 75% of our power from solar and wind.
ETA: Total US grid is 1,300 GW. We are adding about 10 or 15 GW per year of storage. In a highly competitive well compensated field like that we can expect an order of magnitude change every 5 years. So we could be adding 100 GW of storage per year by 2030. That looks manageable to me.
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:41 pm to Penrod
quote:You were the one saying solar could make up a *primary* source of electrical generation. If we start up gas turbines when the sun isn't shining enough, solar could never be "primary" - we need storage for that.
As I posted in response to you already, we won’t need batteries to make up for excessive no-sun days; we’ll startup gas turbines for that. ...
quote:That would take distribution lines across the continent. Not only is that expensive, it just isn't going to happen (environmentalists for one will stop it). And there would be losses that mean we need to generate even more electricity.
... you only need batteries to get us through about six hours of darkness/dawn/dusk between the time the California solar goes dark and the Florida solar wakes up. Cure that problem and we could easily get about 75% of our power from solar and wind. ...
quote:
... ETA: Total US grid is 1,300 GW. We are adding about 10 or 15 GW per year of storage. In a highly competitive well compensated field like that we can expect an order of magnitude change every 5 years. So we could be adding 100 GW of storage per year by 2030. That looks manageable to me.
I don't know what those numbers represent. For one, storage is expressed in watt-hours, not watts. Often, storage cannot deliver all its energy in one hour, so a 1MWh battery might deliver 100 kW for 10 hours, etc. So you need to be careful with hours versus peak power delivery.
The numbers I found:
LINK
LINK
Posted on 1/29/26 at 4:31 pm to MidWestGuy
quote:
You were the one saying solar could make up a *primary* source of electrical generation. If we start up gas turbines when the sun isn't shining enough, solar could never be "primary" - we need storage for that.
What you are saying would be true if we built our solar fields in places with lots of cloudy days, but we won’t. Southern Utah has, on average, over 300 sunny days per year. So, of course the solar could be primary without batteries for more than overnight.
quote:
That would take distribution lines across the continent. Not only is that expensive, it just isn't going to happen (environmentalists for one will stop it). And there would be losses that mean we need to generate even more electricity.
That WILL happen. You are suggesting that environmentalist will torpedo solar.
quote:
For one, storage is expressed in watt-hours, not watts.
That represents power. A watt-hour is not power, it is energy. And batteries are described with both power capacity and energy capacity. Both are critical.
It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. There is every chance that some other technology comes along and makes solar obsolete, or battery tech booms and solar dominates. Another wild card is what will demand do?
I think we would probably agree that we jumped the gun in subsidizing massive green implementation before we had the technology to go green. The government should have subsidized R&D instead, not only on low CO2 tech, but on climate modeling as well. Because that has been an exercise in propaganda to support the climate alarmist narrative.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:42 pm to Penrod
quote:
You are suggesting that environmentalist will torpedo solar.
They will, they do, and they are. They fight wind farms, solar, transmission lines, hydro. Everything does affect the environment, and they are vocal.
One example:
LINK
quote:
Huge Nevada solar is canceled The 850 megawatt, 9,200-acre solar farm, which would have been constructed in southern Nevada’s Moapa Valley, was to sit on 14 square miles on the Mormon Mesa, a flat-topped hill around 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
California-based Arevia Power and Solar Partners VII LLC withdrew their application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) last week in the face of opposition from a group called Save Our Mesa. The group, which is made up of residents, environmentalists, and others, feels that the solar farm would hinder hiking, camping, driving off-highway vehicles, and horseback riding and deter tourists from visiting artist Michael Heizer’s environmental sculpture, “Double Negative” (1969).
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:51 pm to Placekicker
quote:
But, how well did the progressive liberals’ smug superiority keep them warm???
I do love driving by the coal plant with hundreds of feet of coal stacked up Southeast of Bastrop on 71 that powers most of their electric cars. Austin should be lit on fire.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News