Are renewables ready for prime time?
Against my better judgment I will wade back in the the energy discussion.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3088754]Sure, it's all well and good, to boldly claim intellectual dishonesty, but where are the RECEIPTS of said dishonesty?[/QUOTE]When you write [I]Electrostate[/I] aren't you implying that an entire [I]state[/I] can be run on [B]SWB[/B]?
I wrote my statement knowing you would bite. We both know that the countries that run on renewables are NOT using [B]SWB[/B] as their MAIN method of energy production.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3088754]C'Mon. Now, don't you too fall for the MAGA "Rope-a-Dope" (to coin a Muhammad Ali boxing phrase, often used by Howard Cosell) and think baseless opinions and no facts, is the way to conduct a discussion or debate.[/QUOTE]I am willing to give my opinion in this discussion.
[B]Opinion[/B] [I]noun: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof[/I].
[QUOTE=Spidy;3088754]I'd love for you to show me, where I posted that, countries can currently run their entire electricity grid on SWB alone.[/QUOTE]You got me there!
[QUOTE=Spidy;3088754]I've ALWAYS said and stated that, renewables (meaning non-fossil fuels, not just SWB) in many countries around the world, are starting to make-up, consist and be the majority forms of energy, in their grid's energy mix, as they transition to a cleaner grid and phaseout more and more fossil fuels.[/QUOTE]But the only other main forms of renewables is hydro thermal and geothermal. If that is not available then what?
I tell you what the answer is [B]nuclear[/B].
[QUOTE=Spidy;3088754]So when calling someone "intellectually dishonest" or otherwise, rest assured, I have and do bring RECEIPTS![/QUOTE]I personally don't give a fuck. I thought we were not going to take it personally. We are on the same side of the energy issue. I just see more drawbacks than you do, because I have actually used Solar Panels to general electricity and currently there are drawbacks to it. I have experienced them. I use fossil fuel to overcome them. Not to say that someday in the future it might not be needed. But right now in the real world, my business operations requires fossil fuels until AI can run a SMR on my facility. That way I don't have to be a nuclear scientist. Researching, designing, purchasing component, installing the components of my solar electricity generating system taxed my body and brain. But it was very satisfying to turn on a light at night and know that I simply had to monitor my electricity usage and I was NEVER going to pay the electric company a single Dominican Peso.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3088754][B]P.S.:[/B] [I]BTW, thanks for the chuckles w/r to your "Howard Cosell of Energy", representation of my energy intellectual analysis! LOL![/I].[/QUOTE]It's all good my brother! You inspired it.
Electrostate vs. Petrostate: Renewables (SWB) still 50 x order of magnitude better
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]When Texas had its grid fail with a snow / ice storm in 2021. Nuclear was the clear winner. [URL]https://www.americanexperiment.org/wind-energy-fails-grading-the-reliability-of-energy-sources-during-the-texas-power-outages/[/URL][/QUOTE]LOL! If nuclear was the "winner", I can't wait to see Texas build more "winning" nuclear plants, and STOP filling up the ERCOT interconnection queue, will frivolous renewable (SWB) projects. Since when did Repub Texans, decide to ignore energy economics?
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]Because of all the Democratic red tape, a nuclear power plant in the USA is in the 10 to 15 year range, and coal is about half of that. I think that would be close to 50 years for both in California.[/QUOTE]Last I checked, frickin' Texas hasn't build any overrun on cost, overrun on time and over budget nuclear plants since 1993, over 33 years ago. That must be the "drill-baby-drill" Repub Red Tape, you're so fond of.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]Solar power generates electricity approximately 25-30% of the time, while onshore and offshore wind produce power up to 35% and 55% of the time, respectively; compared to 48 percent for conventional coal-fired power plants, 57 percent for natural gas-fired plants, and 93 percent for advanced nuclear plants.
...
If you look at China, they can get solar, wind, and natural gas up and running in less than 2 years. Coal is like a year longer, and nuclear is at around six years.[/QUOTE]Don't forget to deduct the 2/3 wasted and rejected heat that goes up in the air and pollutes the atmosphere, adding to [I]the U.S.'s total cumulative world leading biggest emitter of CO2 emissions[/I]. That's what happens when you're blinded and devoted to the fossil fuel [B]'Primary Energy'[/B] fallacy. [URL]https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=139309[/URL] Remember: [B]You don't BURN a technology, you USE it![/B].
Since you continue to ignore the economics, scalability and intermittent reliability of SWB, over currently implementing nuclear, let me remind you once again what China is really doing with solar.
[LIST]China IS NOT scaling nuclear faster than solar, wind, and batteries (SWB)[/LIST][LIST]The gap is not marginal, it is several orders of magnitude, larger, [b]in 2025[/b]:[LIST] In 2025, China added roughly 430 GW of new wind and solar capacity alone, while nuclear added just 1.1 GW. Even accounting for nuclear's much higher electricity generation capacity factor (around 89% verses 12-23% for solar and 20-45% for wind)[/LIST][LIST]The annual generation added by new SWB in 2025, dwarfed that of new nuclear by a factor of roughly over 50 to 1.[/LIST][LIST]New Capacity Added in 2025 - [b]Solar:[/b] 317 GW, [b]Wind:[/b] 120 GW, [b]Batt:[/b] 62 GW / 183 GWh, [b]Nuclear:[/b] 1.1 GW (400x more/faster installed base S+W)[/LIST][LIST]Approx. Annual Generation Added - [b]Solar:[/b] 414 TWh, [b]Wind:[/b] 282 TWh, [b]Batt:[/b] N/A, [b]Nuclear:[/b] 13 TWh (53x less than SWB)[/LIST][/LIST]Even China moving at "China speed" and is the global leader in nuclear construction, with 36 reactors underway, China still can't scale it's nuclear activities, faster, more economical or deliver more power to the their electricity grid, than it's renewables (SWB) buildouts. [URL]http://www.cctdcoal.com/show-528-187638-1.html[/URL].
China's solar and wind targets have been met consistently and massively faster, as its 2030 renewable goals were reached six (6) years earlier, while its nuclear capacity targets have been repeatedly missed, even at "China speed".
[B]China Keeps Beating Renewable Targets And Missing Nuclear Ones. [/B] China builds both, but they do not scale the same way. [B]July 25th, 2026.[/B] [URL]https://cleantechnica.com/2026/07/25/china-renewable-targets-nuclear-delivery/[/URL].
So I know you MAGA petrolheads, love to ignore the real FACTS and data, but not even China, can add enough nuclear capacity to outpace and beat new additional renewables (SWB) capacity added to their grids to cope with the surge and spike in electricity demand, even with nuclear's higher electricity capacity gap.
More MAGA Lies about Alberta's energy problems
[QUOTE=Canada;3088842]Alberta had very cheap power years ago and then the Canada government decided that we needed to go green and put up hundreds of wind mills and solar. After a 40% increase in our power bills Alberta decided against putting up many more wind mills. Now Alberta stuck with high electricity costs. The windmill scam has cost Alberta residents millions. And it is going to cost more when they have to be removed. [b]The joke is on the simpletons who beleive wind and solar reduce costs.[/b][/QUOTE]Sounds to me, like it was poor planning by the idiot right-wing Conservative Party (that have been in power for most of 50 years) and the grid operators, that didn't plan to have to manage and upgrade their transmission and distribution lines to account for the much need increase in electric generation power, from the new renewable sources, leading to transmission and distribution bottlenecks and curtailment.
[B]Failure to build new transmission set to cost Albertans $260 million per year in higher electricity bills, [/B]May 12,2026. Inadequate transmission infrastructure means even on sunny and windy days, renewable energy production is being needlessly shut-in because generators can't get their power to consumers. [URL]https://www.pembina.org/media-release/failure-build-new-transmission-set-cost-albertans-260-million-year-higher[/URL]
Could the I joke be on MAGA simpletons, who believe their MAGA Fuhrer's lies about windmills? I mean after all, Elvis 2008, said the same dumb stuff, about the recent winter storms [I]in the U.S.[/I] and when grid operators investigated, it was the very same thing Alberta is facing, an aging grid, poor planning by grid operators and the failure and felling of transmission and distribution lines in the network.
Your post once again, sound like more baseless opinions. Do you have any FACTS, evidentiary data and / or information to back them up?
Electrostate vs. Petrostate: Show me the real world math, not propaganda MAGA math
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088832]That is 5% of all the land in Rhode Island to power ONE data center.[/QUOTE]So then, show me the real world data and evidence, that Rhode Island, was dumb enough (like your MAGA Math says they are) to install 5% of the island with solar, to power just one (1), let alone the roughly 5 to 10 data centers, I think they have?
Go on now, show me!
Greatest President ever, easily better than all others combined
[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/14/us/politics/us-troops-latin-america.html[/URL]
5% of the state with solar
Electrostate vs. Petrostate: Show me the real world math, not propaganda MAGA math.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088832]That is 5% of all the land in Rhode Island to power ONE data center.[/QUOTE]So then, show me the real world data and evidence, that Rhode Island, was dumb enough (like your MAGA Math says they are) to install [B]5% of the island with solar,[/B] to power just one (1), let alone the roughly 5 to 10 data centers, I think they have?
Go on now, show me!
P.S: If my previous post was posted, it should have read, "5% of the state with solar".
China generates most of its electricity by burning coal
Period. Full Stop!
[URL]https://www.worldometers.info/electricity/china-electricity/[/URL]
61% Coal Fired Plants. Who is ignoring facts now?
[B]Neither Party is Mine[/B]
