- Dec 19, 2008
TheBike45, are you Kent Beuchert???
Why would you assume hydro plants run 24/7? Only baseload plants do so - nuclear and large coal. Hydro qualifies, in fact, as a peak load producer.
I see that once again those who have opinions about the grid seldom seem to know very much about it.
..., Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who dedicated a new windmill with the statement that "this will show those oil producers something."
Sure it will Max. We make less than 1% of our power using oil, and even that amount is rapidly declining.
I really started to wonder when I read this:
Can that be true? I always assumed that hydroelectric power plants ran 24x7.
Because once your reservoir is full, you either run the water through the turbines and generate, or you spill it over the top and get nothing. In the spring, the runoff often exceeds the reservoir potential so its use it or lose it. Also, due to migratory fish constraints, you often can't spill too much water because of the nitrogen it introduces in the water. This is why BPA will trip fully producing wind plants offline sometimes because they can't reduce hydro output nor can they spill. They were actually fined a lot of money in 2008 I believe when they did spill due to nitrogen levels. In the Pacific Northwest, the hydro on the Columbia River is the base load. Grand Coulee Dam is the largest power plant in the US at over 8 GW.Why would you assume hydro plants run 24/7?
February 04, 2011 U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced additional details of the Department of Energy's "SunShot" initiative to reduce the total costs of photovoltaic solar energy systems by about 75% so that they are cost competitive at large scale with other forms of energy without subsidies before the end of the decade. By reducing the cost for utility scale installations by about 75% to roughly $1 a watt—which would correspond to roughly 6 cents per kilowatt-hour—solar energy systems could be broadly deployed across the country.
Deployment of clean, renewable offshore wind energy will help meet the President's goal of generating 80% of the nation's electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.
I thought from the headline that you were going to say that electric cars were as dirty as diesel...
Seems like in every case there is at least a 20% saving and if my schoolboy maths is correct, the Suzuki is producing 92% more emissions than its electric Mitsubishi rival.
Which analyse the emissions from the source power stations in the case of the electric cars but not the same for the diesels. What about the energy used to transport the crude, refine it and transport it to the filling station. The energy used to refine the oil alone is 9kWh / gallon - enough to drive the EV well over 30 miles (and that's before it's reached your diesel car).
So we have cars that *are* cleaner than disels (as your story admits) but that's not the only benefit. We source our fuel from foreign suppliers and as the current trouble across the Middle East demonstrates, these are unstable and unreliable. Changing our cars to electric gives us the freedom to power them with whatever we like.