World’s ‘solar and wind capital’ freezing due to snow ‘blanketing millions’ of solar panels

No wonder all you do is copy and paste given that when you use your own words you write the nonsense above!

I suggest you need to look up the global energy demands and resources available. LOL at you bringing up the irrelevant Iran nuclear manufacturing and nuclear weapons.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIARAF&usg=AOvVaw2X6LYcHon6ti_RrfxW-0wc
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAFegQIARAF&usg=AOvVaw1lEb9S1i5W_rB0r_l3MNVV
Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world's electricity

Hence there is enough nuclear material to provide about 20 years worth of electricity if all electricity came from nuclear and we'll still be using natural gas so even less number of years if nuclear was to replace gas too

 

Well, no. If you don't understand the relationship between making nuclear weapons and making nuclear fuel then you don't understand nuclear topics. Meanwhile:

Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible | IEEE Conference ...
Nuclear fission energy is as inexhaustible as those energies usually termed "renewable", such as hydro, wind, solar, and biomass. But, unlike the sum of these energies, nuclear fission energy has sufficient capacity to replace fossil fuels as they become scarce. Replacement of the current thermal variety of nuclear fission reactors with nuclear fission fast reactors, which are 100 times more fuel efficient, can dramatically extend nuclear fuel reserves. The contribution of uranium price to the cost of electricity generated by fast reactors, even if its price were the same as that of gold at US14,000/kg,wouldbeUS0.003/kWh of electricity generated. At that price, economically viable uranium reserves would be, for all practical purposes, inexhaustible. Uranium could power the world as far into the future as we are today from the dawn of civilization-more than 10,000 years ago. Fast reactors have distinct advantages in siting of plants, product transport and management of waste.

Nuclear fuel will last us for 4 billion years
whatisnuclear.com › blog › 2020-10-28-nuclear-energ...

Oct 28, 2020 — Some people claim nuclear fuel is inexhaustible and circular, others say we'll run out soon. We do the math. Turns out, it's roughly as ...

 

More nonsense from you followed by more copy & paste, your MO! Try referencing a real source, not a blog based on some science fiction

 

You'll have to do better. One of my links was published by an IEEE conference. The other was presented by a Ph.D. nuclear engineer, and references voluminous published research. The data are against you.

 

Devastating Drone Images Expose The Uselessness Of Wind Energy In Cold Weather
By Kenneth Richard on 25. March 2021

Share this...
A new study affirms 0.3 m (12 inches) of ice buildup along the tip of a wind turbine’s 50-meters-long blades during a typical ice storm dramatically reduces the blades’ capacity to rotate – even in very windy conditions. The averaged power production loss induced by this ice accretion reaches up to 80%.


Image Source: TechXplore.com
The evidence that wind energy cannot reliably meet even the most fundamental need to keep us warm during harsh winter weather continues to accumulate. Nearly 4.5 million Texas residents experienced these grid failure consequences last month.

When a wind turbine blade spins in cold, wet weather, the ice buildup can span the length of the 50-meters-long blade, severely disturbing the aerodynamic balance of the entire 150-meters-tall machine.

Drone images from a new study (Gao et al., 2021) reveal the tips of blades can accumulate 300 mm of ice during an ice storm. Consequently, the blades may slow dramatically or even shut down altogether. The averaged power loss in an icing-induced slowing of blade rotation is 80% when compared to non-iced turbine blades.

In other words, when the weather is cold, wind turbines cannot be relied upon to supply us with the energy we need. . . .

 

How many ice storms do you get each year?
BTW. It has been well demonstrated that the Texas grid failures were not due to wind turbine failure.

 

Wind turbine failure was not the only failure, but it was the first failure.

 

You've been here Jack.
It was at most 10% of the power requirement. The real failing was in the infrastructure and the decision to separate Texas from the national grid as a back up.
I asked how often Texas had ice storms of this sort, this seems pretty pertinent to me, what about you?
If Texas has them often then it should have been considered. If they are infrequent, then calling on the national grid on those rare occasions would have been a simple solution.

 

Most winters in recent years wind was counted on for 20% of Texas power. And btw, the independence of the Texas grid was encouraged for national security (COOP) reasons.

 

I'll take that. So 80% of the failure was elsewhere.
Could the Texas grid not have been independent without literally severing the power cables?
Either way it was a dumb idea, when all across Europe we are interconnecting you are isolating yourselves, not even from hostile forces, but from fellow Americans.
Strange days indeed mama

 

Please link that claim. While wind may have supplied 20% of power over the course of a Texas winter, you cannot say that it is "counted on" to supply 20% of power over any given span of time under any given demand.

Amazing how you are still trying to blame wind power for Texas' lack of preparedness.

 

That "elsewhere" failure was triggered by the initial wind power collapse. And no, the point was to "air gap" there Texas grid from others. Yes, you are interconnecting in Europe. I would not trade places.

 

"Wind was operating almost as well as expected"... A Texas-sized Energy Lie
Wind has accounted for at least 20% of ERCOT’s February generation from 2016 to 2020.

ERCOT % Feb Generation From Wind
2011 10%
2012 11%
2013 13%
2014 10%
2015 12%
2016 20%
2017 23%
2018 25%
2019 24%
2020 26%
2021 (Feb 1- 30%
2021 (Feb 9-1 8%
ERCOT Fuel Mix Report
The Texas Energy Disaster

 

All your figures show is for Feb Generation From other sources
2011 90%
2012 89%
2013 87%
2014 90%
2015 88%
2016 80%
2017 77%
2018 75%
2019 76%
2020 74%
2021 (Feb 1-8 70%
2021 (Feb 9-18 92%

No where does it say that anyone counted on wind to provide 20%. They were only designed to provide 10% but were found to exceed expectations

 

As I posted, wind had accounted for at least 20% of Texas February power in recent years. The chart bears that out.

 

The chart bears out that other sources were failing year on year. Perhaps those other sources were so old that they kept failing no matter how much money was thrown to repair them. Wind was only designed to provide 10% of energy need at the time of construction, the other 90% from other sources, hence the figures for 2011-2015

 

Actually, what it shows is de-investment from other sources in favor of increased investment in wind. Those investment decisions may or may not have been wise, but the result was that from 2016 forward wind provided 20% or more of Texas February power generation.

 

Do you have a link to the investment in wind turbines in 2015/16 ? Wind turbines were designed to provide 10% after phase 5 (i think 5 phases)

 

Texas: Coal Did Not Get Blown Away By Wind
". . . The data for Texas’ power production over the last three years indicates that coal has instead been replaced largely through the growth of natural gas and only to a small extent due to wind. Specifically, the growth of high efficiency combined cycle natural gas production has driven most of the surge to replace aging coal assets. Coal-based power generation is expected to continue to slide as more coal-fired power plants are retired in favor of renewables (wind and solar) and, more frequently, natural gas-based power generation. . . ."

We Spent Billions on Wind Power... and All I Got Was a Rolling Blackout

 

..

 

...

 

That doesn't answer the question

 

Then do some research yourself.

 

Surely you have some more copy & paste you can do? You're the one who has made the claims that Texas "counted on" wind to provide 20% of their energy

 

That's already been demonstrated 2016-2021.