Solar now accounts for over 50% of new electricity capacity added to the U.S. grid

Actually the number is 60%. My number was from a few years ago. I didn't realize Iowa had added that much since then. No, this is not potential output. This is actual power delivered to customers. Iowa is the 5th windiest state in the US, and has a wind-first philosophy, with Natural Gas power plant backup.

 

Hydroelectric power is classified as a renewable. Interesting that the other Climate Deniers didn't correct you.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hydroelectric-energy/

Hydroelectric energy is a form of renewable energy that uses the power of moving water to generate electricity.

 

First posted article - Hail destroys solar panels.
Reply post - Tornado destroys oil rigs.

You tell me.

 

The study if not saying 50% of all energy is coming from solar, it says "Solar now accounts for over 50% of new electricity capacity added to the U.S. grid"

 

About a decade and a half?

 

That's awesome.

China added 32GW of coal plants to build 32GW of solar panels in the US.

 

Yeah, I know that.

 

NGEO is doing what US government did was to reclassify it as renewable it was one time in a separate classification with conventional 24/7 power sources probably because without it the ruinables intermittent power production is suddenly small.

 

Probably need a link for that whopper...

 

The google number is fabricated. Evidently, they used they own AI to answer your question. The real number is <45 according to the EIA. But the observation is actually worse when it snows/ices, etc, since there isn't sufficient surplus production when the weather blows.

 

Seems like a lot of posters to this forum state that the numbers are lies, without providing any proof. Iowa is installing wind so quickly, that the numbers just keep going up (now at 64.7%). This is government data from 2023.. Feel free to provide your link.

https://www.iaenvironment.org/webres/File/Wind Energy Fact Sheet - 2023.pdf

Iowa is a national leader in wind energy, producing the highest percentage of electricity by wind of any state – 64.7%. Iowa now generates more electricity from wind than any other single source.

 

https://iub.iowa.gov/regulated-industries/electric/iowas-electric-profile
Energy Source 2022 Nameplate
Capacity (MW) (1) % Of Nameplate Capacity 2022
Generation (MWh) (2) % Of Generation
Coal 5,542.7 19.83% 18,172,126 24.90%
Wind 12,542.8 44.86% 45,761,370

 

You made the same mistake I did. We both used data a little old. I am in awe of Iowa, and how fast they are transitioning!

 

Alarmist propaganda notwithstanding, the data remain the data.
Which Power Source is Best
Roger Caiazza
The report concludes that “natural gas and nuclear power lead the rest of the class in generating clean and affordable energy”. . . .

Bud’s Offshore Energy blog highlighted a new national energy report card that is of interest to readers here. According to the Mackinac Center press release the report ranks energy sources by ranking eight key energy resource types “based on their ability to meet growing demand for affordable, reliable, and clean energy generation”. The report concludes that “natural gas and nuclear power lead the rest of the class in generating clean and affordable energy”.

Jason Hayes and Timothy G. Nash co-authored this report from Northwood University’s McNair Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government. . . .

The scores in each section were totaled and broken down from 1 to 50. The energy source was given a final letter grade of A to F based on its score out of 50. The grading system results in a comparative ranking that describes the energy resource as excellent (90-100 /A-range), very good (80-89/B-range), average (70-79/C-range), poor (60-69/D-range), and Failure (59 or below/F). This methodology is roughly based on the American Society of Civil Engineers’ methodology described in the annual “A Comprehensive Assessment of American’s Infrastructure: 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure” document.

The score card evaluated each energy source for five ranking areas:

1. Capacity and Reliability: We estimated the capability of this energy source to produce sufficient energy to meet demand. We also considered how plans to maintain existing (or build new) infrastructure and capacity will meet growing energy demand.
2. Environmental/Human Impact: We asked what are the environmental impacts, the human rights, or other labor issues associated with using this energy source.
3. Cost: We asked how the energy source competes with other energy sources in terms of pricing.
4. Technology and Innovation: We asked what technologies are used and what new technologies are being developed for this energy source.
5. Market feasibility: We considered whether the energy source relies on free-market forces to supply energy to the public. To what extent do subsidies and/or government mandates drive its adoption and use? . . . .

The report card, ranked by the final grades, puts natural gas and nuclear at the top of the class.

 

Nothing clean about generating wastes that will be around for hundreds of thousands of years. Current plan - store them at the Power Plants in containment rated for 200 years. Great plan - huh?

 

Seems to be better than the alternatives.

 

Not really if the government would stop preventing what France does normally is reprocess the spend fuels several times and also to reduce transuranic waste to a low level is easily done with very little waste left over this stuff was known back in the 1970's.

Meanwhile Solar and Windpower has a dirty footprint of their own with destruction of land, massive use of CO2 emitting Concrete, numerous compounds some toxic that were mined using child labor raping the land in the process that are not easily recyclable ends up filling landfills of spent blades and more.

Please stop being hypocritical here.

 

You should really research this topic more. Neither of us are experts, but I know enough to say with 100% confidence, that you are overstating this. I recommend Union of Concerned Scientists.

This theme is recurring throughout your posts - being critical of the manufacturing process. All manufacturing processes have ecological overhead. The problem is that you are critical of the eco-industry, while ignoring those same manufacturing processes in the oil sector, transportation sector, and Utilities sector. An appropo cliche is "the pot that called the kettle black". It's hypocritical. Henceforth, instead of taking the time to explain, I will simply write the word "Hypocritical" on posts that continue to make this argument.

Unfortunately I can't quite stop there. The question becomes, once infrastructure is completed (manufacturing process is over), what is occurring? In the case of fossil fuels, internal combustion engine, and even nuclear plants; vast polluting and creation of wastes continues on a daily basis. Not so with renewables. "Irresponsible" is the word for this..

I've just demonstrated who is being hypocritical.

 

I'll take coal over nuclear. The wastes that are generated by nuclear are nothing but an assault on future residents of this planet. They have to maintain them, but get nothing in return.

 

And I'll take them both over wind and solar.

 

Yes. It is.

 

Future renewables-based power is expensive.
Hawaii’s Energy Transition: Solar-for-Coal, One-third Rate Jump
By Richard Storm
The system can meet 17% of Oahu’s electricity demand for three hours at peak load or six hours at half load, Brandon Keefe, the executive chair of Plus Power — the company…

 

LOL,

You don't know who I am, and I live right by the Columbia Generating Station and know many who have worked there and read many decades of news about nuclear power had a Governor who ran the Atomic Energy Commission was part of the local Engineering Union where I met people who worked at Hanford.

Never denied they produce waste and pollution, but renewables do produce a lot of it in Manufacuring and their filling up landfills or stand there inactive in the hills while they decay over time that is what YOU overlook.

Since this renewables obsession is based on faulty idea that CO2 is a pollutant and driver of climate a giant sign of mental illness on the part of warmist/alarmists who for the most part ignore the well known fact that CO2 at the 440 ppm level has negligible warm forcing left.

 

So you're consulting a lot of people who work in the the Nuclear Power Industry, and they tell you Nuclear power is cool. I'd say that is the epitome of biased reporting.

Hogwash. Hypocritical. Cherry picking manufacturing process to deny everyday polluting and creation of radioactive waste products with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years.

Conspiracy theory not supported by 99% of scientists.

 

Scratch one solar farm.
Largescale Solar Farms Proving Vulnerable, Pose Toxic Hazard To The Environment, Soil
By P Gosselin on 31. March 2024

Another solar farm gets wrecked by hailstorm…toxic chemicals now threaten environment
On March 16th, near Needville Texas, thousands of solar panels were destroyed by a powerful hailstorm, causing significant damage to a large 10,000-acre solar farm in the area. It’s tornado season!

The storm brought baseball-sized hail and smashed the solar panels at the Fighting Jays Solar Farm. Though the panels are made of tempered glass, which is designed to shatter safely upon impact, the hail’s size was enough to crack the photovoltaic cells underneath and thus render them useless and possibly environmentally dangerous.

The latest incident once again highlights the vulnerability of solar farms to the weather elements. Last month we reported how in June, 2023, hailstorms in Nebraska destroyed a 14,000-panel 4.375 MW AC solar facility.

Toxic chemicals risk leaking

Not only is the Fighting Jays Solar Farm property damage high, now there’s concern dangerous chemicals could now leak into the ground and contaminate the whole site.




Resident Nick Kaminski, who lives near the solar farms, said he “was shocked” is worried about the environmental impact “some highly toxic chemicals” coming from destroyed panels could have.

FOX 26 here reports:

‘I have a family two children and a wife,’ he said. ‘My neighbors have kids and a lot of other residents in the area who are on well water are concerned that the chemicals are now leaking into our water tables.'”

Damages in the tens of millions of dollars

Currently there’s no publicly available damage estimate for the Fighting Jays Solar Farm. However, news reports on the event do provide some hints for how high the costs might be. Similar hail damage to a solar farm in Texas in 2019 resulted in over $75 million in losses. That particular farm had a capacity of 178 megawatts, while the Fighting Jays Solar Farm is even larger at 350 megawatts.

Based on this, it’s likely the damage to the Fighting Jays Solar Farm will run in the tens of millions of dollars.