Fighting 'Solar Farm' Installation

[Hay Dude]

But we can agree that none of them are clean, non-impactful, producers correct?

What are the categories that would have to be considered for ‘overall impact?’

Human impacts
Mining impacts
Drilling impacts
Seismic impacts
Air quality impacts
Waterway impacts
Animal impacts
Atmospheric impacts
Local impacts
City impacts
Rural impacts
International impacts
Economic impacts
‘Relationship’ impacts

All of the producing means I listed fit in every category. Nothing has zero impact. Each would ‘score’ differently in every category. How would you weight each category and it’s impact?

I’m all for ‘clean coal’ over coal burning from 50yrs ago.

I’m all for nukes over just about any fossil fuel

I don’t have much issue with solar, works well for me, but not for many.

Don’t particularly like wind, the technology or the aesthetic.

Hydro seems pretty clean, but what about that river ecosystem it wiped out? (I love the water, so I’m all about the lake, very pro hydro for this reason! also, living in Texas I’m glad to have water in the tap, without damned reservoirs, that isn’t going to happen)

These are all personal opinions. I could score and weight, but it would fit my opinion.

Researchers will be influenced the same.
Politicians would also be influenced to support a narrative.

I’ve never seen an unbiased study that compared ALL of the impacts for each.

Some lean on water quality, some on CO2, some on other emissions (air, water, waste) some on birth defects, some on life expectancy, some on ozone, some on deforestation, some on marine life, some on labor. Of course most ‘studies’ are internet memes or media headlines.

Everyone’s argument on here is based upon limited knowledge or experience on a particular subject (or headline), but like me, ultimately is just an opinion of matters not founded on 100% fact.

In short, I find it interesting how folks can be so certain of their viewpoint with a guaranteed shortened view of reality.

Well said. I agree that these forms of energy production should be compared in an unbiased, unemotional way. They should reveal environmental impact the same way. Then cost to the end user should be weighed in. Also the impact to humans in terms of safety.
There’s too much intentional BS out there to make informed solutions.

 

[Hay Dude]

Sure thing, tons better than 50 years ago. Would you consider it clean and not impactful now?

Economically, that technology shut a lot of plants down. Close to me a lignite plant survived by adding many round of pollution controls as the EPA tightened its grip. Finally having to mix in Wyoming coal to burn ‘cleaner’, then nearly 100% Wyoming coal, then the economics just didn’t work anymore. Too expensive to burn ‘clean coal’ there any longer. Imploded a decade ago, strip mines are still in reclamation. Was that impactful?

This is where I have questions. What do they mean “too expensive to burn clean coal”? Too expensive for the end user? Too expensive compared to nuke, wind, solar?
OR too expensive to pay fines for burning coal (if there were any) compared to energy sources that are subsidized by taxpayer money confiscation?

I mean like how can adding a scrubber to a coal power plant be more expensive than building 200 giant windmills? The coal plant, the RR tracks, the work force, the infrastructure is already there.
I am skeptical that adding scrubbers costs more than scrapping everything and building enough windmills and solar panels to uptake all the energy produced by the coal plant.

VERY skeptical.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

Would take several hundred mini-cells on telephone poles to equal one 200' tower.

How is it you like many hundred telephone poles and do not like one cell towers?

I have to repeat myself? I thought you had all the answers. Camouflage, flashing lights, vistas. To repeat...antennas can be installed on existing structures going unnoticed while everyone must look at a tall lit structure, not to mention the controversial higher power health effects (smoking was considered "safe" in 1960). Cell providers want tall towers since the soon to be Christmas tree of leased antennas gives more profit.
You have all the answers, eviscerate me, however a waste of time.

 

[LouNY]

No no no. Grid tied systems may absolutely have battery backup. You pasted a bunch of words below that you have no comprehension of what it says.


I do not believe you understood anything above.

Simple grid tie inverters require a 60 Hz pilot signal to match their output. This is a safety feature to halt production when the grid fails, nominally so as not to shock a lineman repairing downed lines who expects the lines to not be powered. That has absolutely nothing to do with battery backup.

Battery backup is no different than generator backup. Both require a disconnect system so as not to backfeed the power grid when power is out.

If interested study how Solar City installs systems, especially those with Tesla Powerwalls, which are commonly used to load shift power consumption. Many install Powerwalls without solar to charge at night when power is cheap so as to have backup and to have power during the day when the prices are high.

Solar City starts with a Tesla Energy Gateway between your electric meter and everything else in your home. This Gateway is capable of taking your home completely off-grid when it detects a grid outage.

The really sneaky thing Tesla Powerwalls do is integrate battery, charger, and inverter in one package. Sneaky because the Powerwalls will source the 60 Hz pilot signal to keep inexpensive Grid Tie PV inverters in operation. All the while the Gateway has taken your home offline.

Things get tricky when the power grid comes back online. The Gateway and Powerwalls somehow figure out how to get back in sync with the grid before the Gateway reconnects.

Somebody didn't but I did, so guess what.

 

[Citydude]

This is where I have questions. What do they mean “too expensive to burn clean coal”? Too expensive for the end user? Too expensive compared to nuke, wind, solar?
OR too expensive to pay fines for burning coal (if there were any) compared to energy sources that are subsidized by taxpayer money confiscation?

I mean like how can adding a scrubber to a coal power plant be more expensive than building 200 giant windmills? The coal plant, the RR tracks, the work force, the infrastructure is already there.
I am skeptical that adding scrubbers costs more than scrapping everything and building enough windmills and solar panels to uptake all the energy produced by the coal plant.

VERY skeptical.

The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER

PDF (869 KB) Coal-fired electricity generation is far cleaner today than ever before. The popular misconception that our air quality…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

 

[Hay Dude]

The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER

PDF (869 KB) Coal-fired electricity generation is far cleaner today than ever before. The popular misconception that our air quality…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

This is what I mean. I am convinced coal can be cleaned up substantially by using technology.
It is my contention that solar and wind is being sold to us based more on emotion than fact.
My gut tells me we could burn coal and gas, much more cleanly and definitely cheaper than destroying an infrastructure that has been in existence for close to 100 years and can be substantially updated.

Before folks start posting pictures of coal plants with scrubbers that have been shuttered, don’t waste your time. I know that the new wave of green energy is heavily subsidized. I know coal is penalized. We are not comparing on a level playing field.
The G_________t said they would rive coal out of business to calm the screaming teenager girls. I know, I saw it on TV.
There’s also a human cost in lost jobs and livelihoods.

 

[Grumpycat]

I have to repeat myself? I thought you had all the answers. Camouflage, flashing lights, vistas. To repeat...antennas can be installed on existing structures going unnoticed while everyone must look at a tall lit structure, not to mention the controversial higher power health effects (smoking was considered "safe" in 1960). Cell providers want tall towers since the soon to be Christmas tree of leased antennas gives more profit.
You have all the answers, eviscerate me, however a waste of time.

Amateur radio operator for 40 years. What would you like to know about RF?

 

[Citydude]

This is what I mean. I am convinced coal can be cleaned up substantially by using technology.
It is my contention that solar and wind is being sold to us based more on emotion than fact.
My gut tells me we could burn coal and gas, much more cleanly and definitely cheaper than destroying an infrastructure that has been in existence for close to 100 years and can be substantially updated.

Before folks start posting pictures of coal plants with scrubbers that have been shuttered, don’t waste your time. I know that the new wave of green energy is heavily subsidized. I know coal is penalized. We are not comparing on a level playing field.
The G_________t said they would rive coal out of business to calm the screaming teenager girls. I know, I saw it on TV.
There’s also a human cost in lost jobs and livelihoods.

The information has been denied, vilified, and cancelled by the media. Even in 2009, the cancel culture was alive and well.

I worked in the coal industry and we watched politicians and their media minions basically trash the truth and deny the science of scrubbers.

After years of being beat down, some of us gave up but we never forgot.

Manufacturing in America will never come back. We don't have the energy to support it.

Good luck America. Your in for a hard landing.

 

[turbo36]

urban sprawl...
In the last 25 years, 200,000 acres of cropland in Iowa has been lost to homes and businesses built farther and farther from city centers.

Now, we are loosing 175 acres an hour to it.

Apparently compared to the amount of land we have lost to urban sprawl solar farms are a drop in the bucket.

 

[turbo36]

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I live a couple of hours from the Ludington pumped water storage, it is very impressive.

 

[Fixastuff]

Who needs facts and a spreadsheet when your gut tells you the answer.

 

[Hay Dude]

Who needs facts and a spreadsheet when your gut tells you the answer.

since theres little to no unbiased “facts” or spreadsheets available with unbiased information, sometimes YOU have to make the call based on what you see.
Nuclear power is the way. I know it and don’t need g______t biased “facts” to convince me otherwise. Coal and NG can be cleaned up tremendously, but the current g_______t made promises to its vocal environmentalist voting block.

 

[Citydude]

Who needs facts and a spreadsheet when your gut tells you the answer.

If your gut is full of Bud Light, it makes sense. Lol

 

[bnold]

This is where I have questions. What do they mean “too expensive to burn clean coal”? Too expensive for the end user? Too expensive compared to nuke, wind, solar?
OR too expensive to pay fines for burning coal (if there were any) compared to energy sources that are subsidized by taxpayer money confiscation?

I mean like how can adding a scrubber to a coal power plant be more expensive than building 200 giant windmills? The coal plant, the RR tracks, the work force, the infrastructure is already there.
I am skeptical that adding scrubbers costs more than scrapping everything and building enough windmills and solar panels to uptake all the energy produced by the coal plant.

VERY skeptical.

The recent history:

coal from the Powder River Basin was blended into the fuel beginning in 2000.[6] LO-NOx burners were installed in both boilers in 2001 to curtail nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.[6] NOx emissions were reduced again in 2008 with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems being retrofitted by Fluor to Big Brown's units.[7][8] The plant was temporarily idled in 2011 in order to overhaul its boilers.[9] This was to fulfill the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to reduce its sulfur dioxide (SO
2) emissions.[9]

The reason stated for shutdown

It was announced on October 13, 2017 that Luminant was to either shut down or sell to another concern Big Brown in early-2018 due to economic factors such as low natural gas prices and growth in renewable energy.

I guess this old coal plant wasn’t subsidized well enough

Low natural gas prices is a real reason, no doubt.

My grandfather worked at this plant in environmental instrumentation mostly. He knew for 20 years the EPA was pushing the restrictions on coal to make operating cost prohibitive when compared to natural gas. Now keep in mind this plant was first operational in 1971, upgrades throughout its life, but it was still an old, relatively small 1,150MW plant.

 

[Grumpycat]

Somebody didn't but I did, so guess what.

You clearly did not and still do not because you still believe battery backup on grid tie PV is forbidden.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Yep. My son went to Mount St. Mary’s University. Their campus had a 100+ acre solar farm. The power was used 50-100 miles away in Baltimore.
It’s a great/sneaky way for urban/city to punish country folks.

Put solar panels right in the cities, where they belong. They leave their lights on all night because of crime and to show off their buildings, so let them deal with the windmills and the solar panels.

Forgot your son went to the mount.
I know that solar farm well.

 

[TN8Man]

Burning fossil fuels = not clean
Nuclear = not clean
Hydro = not clean
Solar = not clean
Wind = not clean
Tidal = not clean
Wood/biomass = not clean
Geothermal = not clean

*Add the word ‘clean’ in front of any of the above categories = not clean

Perhaps we need a new metric

Is there a rating system that could possibly compare all the elements of just how ‘not clean’ all of these producers could be?

Perhaps using the word "clean" is just a clever narrative tool to fool the people.

Perhaps a non-clean (another clever narrative tool) energy source is not harmful to our society when compared to natural events that we can't control like forest fires or volcano eruptions.

We know the smog problems of the past have been greatly reduced and future systems will probably be more efficient.

Remember the old adage ... "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

 

[TN8Man]

We have including my own brother. In his case it could be alcohol also, but anything...alcohol, marijuana, coke, heroin, LSD...I'm sure causes brain damage (quantity & frequency). I'm not a physician just observation. Pot users will defend it's use vigorously.

I would not put marijuana in the same category as alcohol, coke, heroin, LSD.

Marijuana usage by humans dates back Before Christ

 

[Hay Dude]

Didn’t Europe, Germany, etc. try wind and solar and now they’re firing up coal plants again?

 

[TN8Man]

Didn’t Europe, Germany, etc. try wind and solar and now they’re firing up coal plants again?

Yup! After we blew up North Stream 1 & 2 they knew their virtue signaling renewable energy projects would not suffice.