I LOVE this and it’s working. My heating bill went for $30 + down to $3! WOW! : )
Made More Electricity Than Coal…
…and we’re not really even trying YET!
As of last year:
Renewables cover about 100% of German power use for first time ever
we could do this too.
Nice to see coal powering electricity generation a dying cult.
Now, can we please acknowledge that the dam-plugs in the rivers make salmon a passel of dying species?
And can we at least stop pretending otherwise? Killing the salmonids is in no way sustainable!
That’s great! Wow!
Wait…er…um…Some people are counting nuclear energy as renewable. Please clarify. If you put nuclear on the renewable side, I beg to differ. Nuclear creates waste. The waste is not renewable, as of now. Nuclear is made from uranium, which is not renewable. Nuclear uses a large amount of water in cooling, which is not entirely without contamination. Nuclear contamination is difficult to reverse.
Dams are being removed. Maybe not enough of them. The fight will be between lakeside home owners, water needs, flood control and electricity needs.
As I understand, the current driver for dam removal is not the fish, but the fact that they are in disrepair and rebuilding them is just too dam(: expensive.
With global warming, there is often more rain, more water and floods in new areas. I would expect a lot of work on flood control in the future. Don’t expect this EPA to worry about fish, but aging dams may go anyway.
Some places are converting diesel trains to electric. Germany has a hydrogen train. China has all electric trains.
Actually overall it was about 36% according to the article. Which is apparently a pretty good percentage. In the US we’re at about 11-15% depending on who you believe.
All that being said, without some kind of nuke backup, coal, gas are never gonna be replaces with renewables only.
Heating bills usually decrease when the weather warms up (as it often does in April).
I have lived off the grid with all the power necessary for over fourty years , it’s not rocket science , it works , the only sore spot is battery’s , if you keep water in em they last 8 to ten years , about 200 ish bucks a year , seems every house in so cal and the sunny states could have some solar unit on their roofs , time for some r and d for battery’s ,and if as much subsidies went into infrastructure as goes into big oil , the change necessary for our kids to have a liveable environment would be swiftly in reach , and the fossil fuel s could be left in the ground , no nucs period
“without some kind of nuke backup, coal, gas are never gonna be replaces with renewables only.”
Advance thanks for backing up that otherwise worthless claim.
“Washington governor and Democratic party candidate for the presidency Jay Inslee… has pledged to get rid of coal plants entirely by 2030 if he wins the presidency.”
A half-robust proposal - good it’s come along to get attention via election season debates.
The linked article says one of the Inslee proposal’s weak points is how little it says about “‘support for workers’ displaced by the transition from fossil fuels.”
But, as a political sell - as well as for the sake of social decency versus capitalism’s ‘so-go-find-another-job-that’s-modern-life’ ethic - ‘go green’ proposals have to locate renewable industries in coal communities and train workers of idled industry to do the new, better jobs.
Many conservative Democrats and Republicans in coal regions already support healthcare for all; pledging ‘Make America Clean Again!’ renewable industry in affected communities is crucial to getting economically ravaged regions off the poisonous opioid of right wing populism.
Right On, Helen!!! Just because Nuclear Energy (which, per Walt Kelly, is neither new nor clear) does not produce appreciable amounts of “greenhouse gases” does not mean that it is in ANY WAY a renewable. There are Big Bucks invested in Nuclear Power, just as there are Big Bucks invested in Fossil Fuel Power (in fact, there are a lot of the SAME Big Bucks invested in both), and all of these greed-heads have only one thing in mind – the same thing as their stooge Tweetle-Dumb – the maximization of their short-term profits and to hell with the rest of us.
Some people don’t think too far ahead in this case. Nobody ever thinks about the billions that live o virtually no energy right now. To bring all hose billions to the same standard of living as the first world countries they’ll need pretty much the same amounts of energy the first world uses. Please tell me you don’t think solar and wind are gonna supply all that.
“Some people don’t think too far ahead in this case. Nobody ever thinks about the billions that live o virtually no energy right now.”
Plain ignorant: there’s a lot of “thinking” about how to help modernize developing countries, including how to supply energy - with a new emphasis on renewable energy.
I won’t do your work for you, but, e.g.:
“To bring all hose billions to the same standard of living as the first world countries they’ll need pretty much the same amounts of energy the first world uses.”
Sorry, your argument depends on another unsupported claim - that supplying the energy needs of undeveloped countries necessarily means their copying “first world” standards of living - in fact, the “first world” standard of electrification is one thing; the “first world” standard of a car or two to get around - quite another.
“Please tell me you don’t [sic] think solar and wind are gonna supply all that.”
Please support your claim they can’t: whether because the governments and peoples of developing countries will automatically develop like earlier first world countries (here, please include the ‘impossibility’ of first world countries offering the carrot of renewable energy subsidies to promote renewable energy choices); or because - despite increased solar/wind efficiency - renewable energy cannot and will never be able to compete with dirty energy.