Global Warning/Climate Change

[Ken]

Yes, the way they do things in Ohio is so much better. 70% of Ohio's electricity comes from coal.

Who said Ohio is any better? Personally, I love wind power, I love hydro power, and I even like some wood burning, but the scale is the problem.

Wind is super efficient when it runs a ram pump to pump water into a water tower for local use.

hydro power is super efficient when it runs a line shaft to power a grain or saw mill.

You can build both of these structures entirely with green wood or reclaimed lumber.

Utility-Scale wind on the other hand, consists of enormous contraptions that require massive energy and rare resource inputs to build, transport and maintain, and have a limited lifetime. Generation often takes place far from consumption, meaning massive transmissions loss, and the inevitable timing mismatches between generation supply, and consumption demand will require expensive, destructive storage facilities. Like everything else the Ponzi scheme known as industrial society has produced; this is short term benefit in exchange for long term debt.

Hoping that exponential growth in energy consumption can be sustained by nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, or w/e unicorn that comes along next is sure to result in disappointment. The consumption will have to decline at some point.

I'm just pointing out that there is context to everything.

If you complain about the visual blight of windmills you have to ask what is the alternative. The alternatives are (1) not using electricity, or (2) generating it some other way. Which in much of the Midwest including Ohio where Josh lives means coal.

Personally I think a combination of modern nuclear along with wind, solar, and hydro are where we need to be. Especially offshore wind which is what we should be doing here in the Pacific Northwest.

[Robert]

Personally I think a combination of modern nuclear along with wind, solar, and hydro are where we need to be.

I have really soared on wind of late. I am not sure it is really efficient enough to justify it without subsidies. Maybe that will change.

I still think technology is the solution. The challenge is getting government out of the way so we can honestly see what technologies are beneficial and which are not. I do agree that it can easily be a combined solution. Solar is still not there because of the need for battery storage for night time use.

[nett]

Yes, the way they do things in Ohio is so much better. 70% of Ohio's electricity comes from coal.

Who said Ohio is any better? Personally, I love wind power, I love hydro power, and I even like some wood burning, but the scale is the problem.

Wind is super efficient when it runs a ram pump to pump water into a water tower for local use.

hydro power is super efficient when it runs a line shaft to power a grain or saw mill.

You can build both of these structures entirely with green wood or reclaimed lumber.

Utility-Scale wind on the other hand, consists of enormous contraptions that require massive energy and rare resource inputs to build, transport and maintain, and have a limited lifetime. Generation often takes place far from consumption, meaning massive transmissions loss, and the inevitable timing mismatches between generation supply, and consumption demand will require expensive, destructive storage facilities. Like everything else the Ponzi scheme known as industrial society has produced; this is short term benefit in exchange for long term debt.

Hoping that exponential growth in energy consumption can be sustained by nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, or w/e unicorn that comes along next is sure to result in disappointment. The consumption will have to decline at some point.

I'm just pointing out that there is context to everything.

If you complain about the visual blight of windmills you have to ask what is the alternative. The alternatives are (1) not using electricity, or (2) generating it some other way. Which in much of the Midwest including Ohio where Josh lives means coal.

Personally I think a combination of modern nuclear along with wind, solar, and hydro are where we need to be. Especially offshore wind which is what we should be doing here in the Pacific Northwest.

Of the course the only viable solution: (1) is never discussed.

you missed a 3rd option, recognize that industrial society was built on the infinite energy glitch, repent for the sin of plundering the earth for short term gain, and work to reduce our dependance on energy. The earth was created with natural sustainable cycles that produce more than enough energy for our life.

[nett]

Personally I think a combination of modern nuclear along with wind, solar, and hydro are where we need to be.

I have really soared on wind of late. I am not sure it is really efficient enough to justify it without subsidies. Maybe that will change.

I still think technology is the solution. The challenge is getting government out of the way so we can honestly see what technologies are beneficial and which are not. I do agree that it can easily be a combined solution. Solar is still not there because of the need for battery storage for night time use.

The question is, if techno-optimism is the answer, why hasn't it worked yet? Things just keep getting worse, and it's not because the government is over-regulating. Corporations keep doing bad things.

[ohio jones]

70% of Ohio's electricity comes from coal.

I'm not sure where you are getting this, but it seems to be outdated. According to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the regional generation in 2019 (OH is lumped in with PA, WV, VA, NJ, MD, DE and parts of a few other states) looks like this:



This page shows the current (yes that is a pun) fuel mix (coal is at 19% right now), load forecast, wind generation and forecast, and solar generation for the region.

What this data does not show is the impact of dedicated solar or wind farms that supply some or all of the electricity for an end user, excluding that from both the load and generation statistics (unless they have excess generation that goes back into the grid).

[ohio jones]

And if you want to look at just Ohio rather than the region, here is the most recent breakdown (38% coal):

[ken_sylvania]

Personally I think a combination of modern nuclear along with wind, solar, and hydro are where we need to be.

I have really soared on wind of late. I am not sure it is really efficient enough to justify it without subsidies. Maybe that will change.

I still think technology is the solution. The challenge is getting government out of the way so we can honestly see what technologies are beneficial and which are not. I do agree that it can easily be a combined solution. Solar is still not there because of the need for battery storage for night time use.

If you're going to soar on the wind, please be sure not to go too close to the sun!

[Ken]

And if you want to look at just Ohio rather than the region, here is the most recent breakdown (38% coal):

I got the 70% figure from here: https://www.starenergypartners.com/blog ... 0of%20Ohio.

[ohio jones]

I got the 70% figure from here: https://www.starenergypartners.com/blog ... 0of%20Ohio.

If you copy and paste the first Google result without vetting it, that's the sort of inaccuracy you end up with.

Star Energy Partners is one of the companies you can buy electricity from through Ohio's energy choice program. Their cheapest rate in my market area is 50% more than I'm currently paying, plus they charge $15/month for the privilege of being ripped off by their high prices. Still want to trust their undated data?

[Ken]

I got the 70% figure from here: https://www.starenergypartners.com/blog ... 0of%20Ohio.

If you copy and paste the first Google result without vetting it, that's the sort of inaccuracy you end up with.

Star Energy Partners is one of the companies you can buy electricity from through Ohio's energy choice program. Their cheapest rate in my market area is 50% more than I'm currently paying, plus they charge $15/month for the privilege of being ripped off by their high prices. Still want to trust their undated data?

That's true. That number is obviously now out of date. Digging deeper that NYT recently came out with a state-by-state analysis of energy sources over time. In Ohio it has dropped from 87% coal in 2000 to the figure you cited today. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ction.html

Here is Ohio. The change from coal has been quite recent and dramatic



Here is my state:



I will obviously admit that the 70% number is out of date. But the point remains. If you want to criticize solar or wind or some other source of electricity you have to ask what the alternatives are.