nwdiver
Well-Known Member
If they had an ounce of intelligence they would build more wind.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
If they had an ounce of intelligence they would build more wind.
juliusa
Active Member
That must be it. Need some people from CA to come and splain it to them, in simple terms.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
juliusa
Active Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
'coming' future-tense. We'll see...
The morons keep electing morons that are trying to levy a moronic ~20% tax on wind generation.
juliusa
Active Member
Did you read the article? You think the pictures are photoshopped?
Wyoming produces over 3x more energy from renewables than California - per capita.
They also produce 3x more energy than California.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/xls/P2.xlsx
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Hence the 'more' instead of 'some'.
They're still generating ~3200MWh/yr from the worst of the fools fuel. That's ~3200MWh/yr too much. Moronic is an understatement given Wyomings wind potential.
Wyoming could easily power most of the Western states with clean wind but they're too obsessed with preserving their precious fools fuel industry. Pathetic.
Not exactly the picture of progress....
juliusa
Active Member
California is the real problem here, importing 26% of their electricity. Why don't they simply add generation from renewables so they don't have to import electricity? Didn't you show a map showing how little area would be needed to power the entire US with solar?
Instead, they talk about how green they are while 26% of their electricity is generated by coal plants outside the state.
Right back at ya: California could easily power the entire US with clean solar - they simply choose to get it from the precious fools fuel industry. Pathetic.
juliusa
Active Member
You live in CA right? Why not concentrate on CA could...
Wyoming already produces over 3x more energy from renewables than California - per capita. Seem CA is behind the curve here.
juliusa
Active Member
Only because California is buying it. They would cut that in half if nobody outside the state would buy it.
They won't produce what won't get consumed.
juliusa
Active Member
I was responding to this:
'coming' future-tense. We'll see...
So if CA had an ounce of intelligence, they would build more solar?
26% is imported electricity generated by coal.
43% is generated in-state by natural gas.
Plenty of opportunity for the supposedly progressive state.
Wouldn't it be nice if people focused on what THEY can do instead of judging others?
Wouldn't it be nice if people focused on what THEIR state could do instead of judging others?
If CA would only lead by example, the rest of the country and world would follow.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Sure looks like they are building more solar...
As opposed to the Morons in WY with a flat yr/yr generation profile for renewables...
When I worked in Wyoming, in the middle of nowhere, we were required to have non specular (shiny) overhead wire for esthetics. I assume thousands of wind mills would also cause some change in the views. In addition we had to have special bird purchases on power poles to prevent eagles from getting fried. If we had any birds die because of our operations it was considered a disaster. I would guess the amount of windmills you are talking about would disrupt the views and kill many more birds and bats than any fossil fuel operations. In addition I found this and was surprised that it states that large wind farms actually increase the temperature in the short run by mixing ground temperatures into the atmosphere. Basically even renewables are not all positive.
Large-scale wind power would require more land and cause more environmental impact than previously thought | Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
Large-scale wind power would require more land and cause more environmental impact than previously thought | Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The warming caused by wind turbines is localized and doesn't add any net thermal energy. It just prevents cold air from settling to the ground. It would be impossible for wind to kill more eagles and bats than coal is responsible for. Between mercury, SO2, NOx and CO2. Coal is ridiculously nasty and it's beyond absurd we still use it for fuel.
juliusa
Active Member
California has a long way to go to catch up. Wyoming already produces 3x as much renewable energy per capita as California.
1000 MW of solar? Is that a joke?? That is like pissing in the ocean.
The Mountainview Natural Gas Plant produces 1000mW. And remember, that operates probably 90% of the time. Solar is usually estimated at 6 hours per day - or 25% of the time.
California has a long way to go before they should be preaching to others. How about starting simply by generating their own electricity.
juliusa
Active Member
Come on, we are trying to save the planet here. Surely Wyoming can give up some views and kill a few birds to provide electricity to California without burning coal.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... 1000MW added just in 2015. Currently ~23,000MW installed in the state.
Come on, we are trying to save the planet here. Surely Wyoming can give up some views and kill a few birds to provide electricity to California without burning coal.
Coal kills more birds per MWh than wind. That would be a decrease in bird deaths because math.
juliusa
Active Member
Ok - got it. Missread it.
Still have a long way to catch up to Wyoming in renewable energy production per capita. Need to add another 50,000MW - I think you need to add faster than a few thousand MW per year...
Got a reference for that statistic?
Still, how about California kill their own birds instead of asking Wyoming to kill the birds and send the electricity?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Coal is already killing birds in Wyoming... why not use wind and kill fewer birds????
Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity
juliusa
Active Member
I have no idea. Maybe their electricity customers in California would rather pay lower electricity rates than save birds?
If you really want Wyoming to stop burning coal, the best thing is to stop buying the electricity. I know you don't buy any, but a lot of your neighbors in the state are. Perhaps need prop-clean on the next ballot: make it illegal to sell electricity generated by coal in CA.
It will be interesting to see how much Californians are willing to pay for electricity. I have seen reports that rates may go up due to liability for the recent fires, and for infrastructure investment needed to prevent fires from transmission lines.
The real solution is for California to (1) generate their own electricity (they have enough sunlight in the state, right?) and (2) replace their fossil fuel plants with renewables.
- Status
Similar threads
