Texas also has alot bigger budget than Oregon. Texas's budget was more than triple Oregon's budget. Yet Oregon nearly equaled Texas in renewable energy generation: 40,274 Gwh for Oregon vs 47,956 Gwh for Texas. The $7 billion Texas spent on it's grid upgrade is more than Vermont's entire state budget! And Texas is still below the US average on renewable energy generation.ROCKMAN wrote:And forget the percentage bullshit. CA, the #1 solar energy producer, generates more then 1,400X the #2 Arizona. And Texas, #1 wind power energy producer, generates more then 2X the #2 Oregon. And Texas produces almost 3X as much wind electricity as CA does solar power.
Ha! Nice try but if that is your yardstick Illinois smacks the crap out of both of you with our nuclear generation! We genererated 1,024 trillion BTU(300,105 GWh) in 2014 from nuclear. That's more than the total renewable generation of Texas and California combined. Hell, it's more than the total wind and solar generation for the NATION combined. US non hydro renewable generation was only 298,358 GWh in 2015. Get it in gear slackers!ROCKMAN wrote:The goal of the wind and solar alts is to reduce the total amount of GHG produced by electricity generation. In that regards Texas and CA beat the sh*t out of all you slackers. LOL.
kiwichick wrote:@pstarr...I would have to agree with you about the current nuclear plants not being renewable .....due to the fact that Uranium has to mined and also due to the decommissioning costs
but the others are all definitely renewable.....and as efficiency of solar panels , wind turbines , geothermal systems etc, improve and the increase of the % of power generated by renewables increases , they become increasingly more renewable
onlooker wrote:6: The Best Places For Solar And Wind Are Usually Far Away From Consumers
Zarquon wrote:onlooker wrote:6: The Best Places For Solar And Wind Are Usually Far Away From Consumers
That reminds me of an older post on Tom Murphy's blog:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... ure-trove/
It's a long and nerdy post about how surprisingly small the differences in PV output between the best and the worst US locations are - Alaska and S. California differ by a factor of merely two.
And here's the National Renewable Energy Lab's online PV calculator:
http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php
Very nice and simple tool. Just enter a city name, leave everything on the next page on default settings (a standard single-family rooftop installation) and here's the results in kwh/a:
Anchorage 3,454
NYC 5,097
Fargo 5,308
Houston 5,356
St. Louis 5,462
San Diego 6,438
So the best place for solar is probably pretty much wherever you happen to live. OK, if you live in Alaska you're screwed, but then if you live in Alaska you already know that.
(edit: Houston gets as much output as Fargo, North Dakota? What is it, your ten-gallon hats shading the roofs or what?)
vtsnowedin wrote:Zarquon wrote:onlooker wrote:6: The Best Places For Solar And Wind Are Usually Far Away From Consumers
That reminds me of an older post on Tom Murphy's blog:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... ure-trove/
It's a long and nerdy post about how surprisingly small the differences in PV output between the best and the worst US locations are - Alaska and S. California differ by a factor of merely two.
And here's the National Renewable Energy Lab's online PV calculator:
http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php
Very nice and simple tool. Just enter a city name, leave everything on the next page on default settings (a standard single-family rooftop installation) and here's the results in kwh/a:
Anchorage 3,454
NYC 5,097
Fargo 5,308
Houston 5,356
St. Louis 5,462
San Diego 6,438
So the best place for solar is probably pretty much wherever you happen to live. OK, if you live in Alaska you're screwed, but then if you live in Alaska you already know that.
(edit: Houston gets as much output as Fargo, North Dakota? What is it, your ten-gallon hats shading the roofs or what?)
Annual production is one thing. What you can get on a winter day quite another. Unless an Alaskan resident has batteries to store a six month supply they are out of luck. On the other hand Texas will still produce a good amount mid winter, Fargo not so much.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
kiwichick wrote:some estimates for decommissioning nuclear power plants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
have a guess at the estimate for 3 mile island....it's a lot more scary than any movie!!
Subjectivist wrote:-snip-
Reallity check, in America decomissioning is pre paid for with a 1 percent surcharge on electricity bills.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests