While we spend all this money on trying to keep the lights on with existing and decrepit units, we have no serious protection against cyberattack. That's actually my bigger concern. I've been down a rabbit hole of books on the grid and vulnerability and it's far more concerning than the summer being too hot to handle loads of heat.

Quote:

---

Can't argue with facts, the 68,000 megawatts of wind and solar capacity is unreliable.

---

Tell that to my state, Colorado. The PUC is all in on unicorn farts, solar and wind projects now that the war on natural gas has started. Colorado is going to have a severe energy shortage starting around 2028, Not an exaggeration either. They need rolling mass projects, geothermal and more nat gas projects starting TODAY to make the grid reliable and efficient.

The CO2 levels are higher than ever recorded before (using ice core sampling going back a long long way). CO2 is a greenhouse gas that we are told will cause the planet to warm. Volcanoes contribute to CO2 levels, but they have been around for longer than the ice core samples. That means the additional CO2 has to come from somewhere. The most likely source is from combustion. That is mostly from humans. And there is a lot of combustion going on.
Can we stop the climate from changing, no. Are we making things warm up ahead of the natural schedule, probably. Is there a catastrophic tipping point? I don't think so. If we stop all combustion now, will things go back to whatever their natural cycle would be? Yes, but not in our lifetime, and we don't know where that natural cycle would be at. Might be exactly where we are now, might be going into a cooling cycle, might be hotter.
There is a feedback loop that will kick in at some point to take up the extra CO2, being the algae in the ocean. What effects that will cause are unknown. What if the algae takes up the CO2 until it dies and then creates a giant dead zone?
Anyway, I think we are exacerbating the situation. I am optimistic that technology will break the combustion cycle (fusion, but that is another thread). Until that tech is ready, I think we need to put more efforts into moving away from combustion. Fission is good for now, but it is really slow to build. We need to start asap.
All that said, I am not giving up my job in petrochem, nor am I giving away my hemi!

Another Texas coal plant will be shuttered within the next 5 years and they are replacing it with solar.

AgGrad99 said:

---

You'll see people quote 40% of our capacity comes from wind/solar. But it's a bit disingenuous, because it's rarely above 15% of the actual power generation. And, it's not a very efficient means of power generation. Yesterday it accounted for 13%.

And Efficiency matters, not just the production.

This is very simplified math, just to make a point. But let's say it takes .75 MW to generate 1MW of power. To generate 5 MW, you need 20 units.
Lets say another source takes .15 MW of power to generate 1 MW. To generate 5MW, you need 5.9 units.

It's no different than selling a widget for $5, that cost either $3.75 to make, versus one that cost $1.25. What's going to make you more money?...which one makes business sense?

But with power, the governments pays for the difference in subsidies for the 'green' choices. Without it, it makes very little sense. Countries we compete with go with the best option for their needs, other factors be damned.

Point being, just looking at the percentages is a red herring. What is the best bang for the buck? Which one makes sense? It's great to say 'look at the capacity it provides us'...but that ignores an important part of the equation.

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear....we need additional nuclear capacity across the State yesterday

---

You're not really making the point you think you're making, and you're still wrong.

The metric you're looking for is levelized cost of energy. Unsubsidized wind and solar are on par with new build gas, cheaper than of coal, and 5-10x cheaper than nuclear. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf

For better or worse, wind and solar are extremely commoditized at this point and quite inexpensive to build. There is no downside to a diverse energy generation supply up to a certain point. Once renewable penetration reaches 50%+ then we start having market issues like the duck curve in CA but that's a separate topic.

Jbob04 said:

---

Another Texas coal plant will be shuttered within the next 5 years and they are replacing it with solar.

---

Are you talking about the local one down the road?

As far as CO2, the math only works, if the source is a loss of OM from Ag soils.

Which is also the only way to fix it.

It's the only human activity which involves a sufficient tonnage of carbon to have caused it, and to fix it.

And, fixing it is economically viable.

Now, a good civic investment may be some kind of incentive to cover the 4-10 year loss of profitability it takes for a farm to convert to regenerative farming, etc.

But the market is doing that, regardless, because it is more profitable. It's just tough on farmers with limited capital.

Not that one luckily. The one in Bremond is.

Jason_Roofer said:

---

Milwaukees Best Light said:

---

Since we are dancing around it, I am curious to hear opinions on Global Warming.

1. Do you believe it is actually occurring?

Yes. Climate change is real. I spent undergrad and post grad studying and understanding it. It's normal. No need to be alarmed.

2. Do you believe it is being caused by man, or a natural earth cycle?

I don't think we caused it. I think we are part of the overall process as a whole. I feel it's narcissistic to think we are that awesome so as to cause the earth to change its normal course. If we all died tomorrow, the climate would still change.

3. Saying you believe it is actually happening, do you think man can do anything to stop it?

No. Not in any meaningful way. Again, we're just along for the ride.

---

All that said, even though I don't think we have a huge impact, I think we should be good stewards of the environment. I am constantly reminded on our place that we don't own anything. Humans have lived and died exactly where I grow vegetables for tens of thousands of years. They've fished the same spring fed creek I do. They are gone, and now it's my turn to care for it. We are only passive and temporary stewards of our parcel of land. We're here for a one lifetime and then it's someone else's to care for. Solar is not being a good steward. Neither is strip mining. But that was the best we could do once and when we realize the impacts we should do better.

---

Then i hope you are against shopping centers, suburbs, cities, etc because they are more devastating to wildlife than coal mines.

I disagree on your strip mining comment. Reclaimed mine land is some of the best land around for wildlife.

Those were awesome pics

Jbob04 said:

---

I disagree on your strip mining comment. Reclaimed mine land is some of the best land around for wildlife.

---

Fair enough, when it is actually reclaimed and managed properly I could see that as being good. I am more aware of the type referenced in the comment on the first page.

Quote:

---

It's mined out. I grew up seeing acres and acres of good forest and cropland strip mined for lignite - with promises it would be reclamated and given back to the landowners after 10 - 15 year leases. 75 years later, with leases that politicians kept renewing with no option for the landowners, it's a wasteland. Little patches of "reclamated" pines where hardwoods once stood, rusted equipment, ruined water tables.

---

But, yes, I agree with you when the follow through occurs.

All of that said, regardless of what I think of Greenie Weenies, there is a lot more 'earth conscious' type of mentality now than there used to be. I think moving forward we will see better options for environmental reclamation, repair, and protocols going forward. I welcome that. I personally would like to see mandates and incentives on dark sky initiatives in every county in the state. I feel like in the near future, these things will be more prevalent and that will all trickle down to improved methods for energy sources and use. Maybe not so much mandates as incentives.

giddings_ag_06 said:

---

Aggietaco said:

---

I'm surprised wind was providing almost 15% at nearly midnight.

---

Wind doesn't stop blowing just because it's dark. Proven by my grill cover across the fence on my neighbor's place.

---

Most evenings it does after sundown. Unless a front is blowing in.

The correct answer is "yes"


How many screwdrivers do you own?

Gunny456 said:

---

What was wrong with the lignite plants? They had become very clean.

Then we could get a lot of our good fishing lakes back.

---

If you don't mind a little mercury in your fried fillets.

Milwaukees Best Light said:

---

Since we are dancing around it, I am curious to hear opinions on Global Warming.

1. Do you believe it is actually occurring?

2. Do you believe it is being caused by man, or a natural earth cycle?

3. Saying you believe it is actually happening, do you think man can do anything to stop it?

---

We might have more insight into all of this soon. Dissenting voices have been hugely silenced over the last several years. Researchers driven by our tax dollars (to pump up the favored narrative) will likely see way fewer checks in their mailboxes AND X is now available for broadcasting counterpoints without the formerly-guaranteed censorship.

There's a new Sheriff in town, thank God.

Mercury in fish occurs naturally as well.

ATXAdvisor said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

What was wrong with the lignite plants? They had become very clean.

Then we could get a lot of our good fishing lakes back.

---

If you don't mind a little mercury in your fried fillets.

---

Got any data to back that claim up?

JobSecurity said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

You'll see people quote 40% of our capacity comes from wind/solar. But it's a bit disingenuous, because it's rarely above 15% of the actual power generation. And, it's not a very efficient means of power generation. Yesterday it accounted for 13%.

And Efficiency matters, not just the production.

This is very simplified math, just to make a point. But let's say it takes .75 MW to generate 1MW of power. To generate 5 MW, you need 20 units.
Lets say another source takes .15 MW of power to generate 1 MW. To generate 5MW, you need 5.9 units.

It's no different than selling a widget for $5, that cost either $3.75 to make, versus one that cost $1.25. What's going to make you more money?...which one makes business sense?

But with power, the governments pays for the difference in subsidies for the 'green' choices. Without it, it makes very little sense. Countries we compete with go with the best option for their needs, other factors be damned.

Point being, just looking at the percentages is a red herring. What is the best bang for the buck? Which one makes sense? It's great to say 'look at the capacity it provides us'...but that ignores an important part of the equation.

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear....we need additional nuclear capacity across the State yesterday

---

You're not really making the point you think you're making, and you're still wrong.

The metric you're looking for is levelized cost of energy. Unsubsidized wind and solar are on par with new build gas, cheaper than of coal, and 5-10x cheaper than nuclear. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf

For better or worse, wind and solar are extremely commoditized at this point and quite inexpensive to build. There is no downside to a diverse energy generation supply up to a certain point. Once renewable penetration reaches 50%+ then we start having market issues like the duck curve in CA but that's a separate topic.

---

Economic Analysis for wind and solar is invalid because it completely ignores the cost of backup power for renewables.

For every 1000 megawatts of renewables, 750 megawatts of standby power ( natural gas) has to exist to replace the renewables due to their unpredictability.
Who pays the cost for that standby infrastructure ?

For our civilization to exist it requires electricity 7/24/265 not just when the wind blows.

Animal Eight 84 said:

---

JobSecurity said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

You'll see people quote 40% of our capacity comes from wind/solar. But it's a bit disingenuous, because it's rarely above 15% of the actual power generation. And, it's not a very efficient means of power generation. Yesterday it accounted for 13%.

And Efficiency matters, not just the production.

This is very simplified math, just to make a point. But let's say it takes .75 MW to generate 1MW of power. To generate 5 MW, you need 20 units.
Lets say another source takes .15 MW of power to generate 1 MW. To generate 5MW, you need 5.9 units.

It's no different than selling a widget for $5, that cost either $3.75 to make, versus one that cost $1.25. What's going to make you more money?...which one makes business sense?

But with power, the governments pays for the difference in subsidies for the 'green' choices. Without it, it makes very little sense. Countries we compete with go with the best option for their needs, other factors be damned.

Point being, just looking at the percentages is a red herring. What is the best bang for the buck? Which one makes sense? It's great to say 'look at the capacity it provides us'...but that ignores an important part of the equation.

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear....we need additional nuclear capacity across the State yesterday

---

You're not really making the point you think you're making, and you're still wrong.

The metric you're looking for is levelized cost of energy. Unsubsidized wind and solar are on par with new build gas, cheaper than of coal, and 5-10x cheaper than nuclear. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf

For better or worse, wind and solar are extremely commoditized at this point and quite inexpensive to build. There is no downside to a diverse energy generation supply up to a certain point. Once renewable penetration reaches 50%+ then we start having market issues like the duck curve in CA but that's a separate topic.

---

Economic Analysis for wind and solar is invalid because it completely ignores the cost of backup power for renewables.

For every 1000 megawatts of renewables, 750 megawatts of standby power ( natural gas) has to exist to replace the renewables due to their unpredictability.
Who pays the cost for that standby infrastructure ?

For our civilization to exist it requires electricity 7/24/265 not just when the wind blows.

---

We going camping for 100 days! Woo hoo!!!

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Bradley.Kohr.II said:

---

At this point, I think every sane person prefers nuclear.

Solar may be a good use for desert/parking lots/building rooves, etc.

---

I think solar is fine on top of an existing structure, like warehouses. Taking up acres of otherwise viable land...that's just dumb.

---

I like gas. Most large solar projects don't use otherwise viable land. I guess it depends on what your definition of viable is.

Jbob04 said:

---

ATXAdvisor said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

What was wrong with the lignite plants? They had become very clean.

Then we could get a lot of our good fishing lakes back.

---

If you don't mind a little mercury in your fried fillets.

---

Got any data to back that claim up?

---

You mean besides the signs on the East Texas power plant lake I grew up fishing that warned not to eat the fish due to mercury levels?

https://publicinterestnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NHE-Biggest-Mercury-Polluters-WEB.pdf

That is dated 2011 and yes back then it was much more prevalent. Today's power plants don't have near the amount of mercury pollution.

rme said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Bradley.Kohr.II said:

---

At this point, I think every sane person prefers nuclear.

Solar may be a good use for desert/parking lots/building rooves, etc.

---

I think solar is fine on top of an existing structure, like warehouses. Taking up acres of otherwise viable land...that's just dumb.

---

I like gas. Most large solar projects don't use otherwise viable land. I guess it depends on what your definition of viable is.

---

There are literally dozens of large commercial solar farms recently installed in Brazoria, Ft Bend and Wharton County row crop lands. I routinely drive past them. All supplying the Houston grid.