Nuclear is cleanest, safest, cheapest, and renewable


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

I simply want to say is that I was impressed with this man's presentation. It was factually accurate, devoid of bias, and spot on the problems we currently experience every day in the Western Interconnection, Eastern Interconnection, and in Ercot with integrating renewable power sources. The grid is a very complicated system that most people don't understand. He did a great job explaining the core elements and why integrating renewables is difficult.

Oh, just one other thing - the 10-30% number is indeed accurate, but it represents a capacity factor. A solar panel may be producing electricity from 8AM to 8PM, but the capacity factor is different than just the time spent producing. Capacity factors represent how much energy it produces in that time compared to the total it could have produced.

Example: A 1MW capacity solar farm produces 0.5MW on a clear day in the winter for 12 hours. The capacity factor would be = (0.5MW*12hours)/(1MW*24hours) = 25%. 

If anyone has specific nuclear or real-world grid questions I'd be glad to try to answer them.

Edited by clwnuke
Removing personal information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Admittance...I actually have a son-in-law that works in the solar business.   This is a biased comment I am about to make in favor of the types of things he puts in.

They have several systems.  For a basic system it ...

I’m fairly sure I mentioned I’ve been researching this stuff for 2 years...

Nothing you said showed anything amounting to solar panels that generate power 90% of the time.  And a 24x8 roof cannot hold enough solar panels to generate power to keep an A/C unit running throughout the night regardless of the capacity of your battery banks.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
10 hours ago, estradling75 said:

It does get confusing when people say they install solar panels and cut there power bill to zero... ( I know I am wanting to)  That make it sound like all the power is coming from Solar.

But the simple fact is with Solar with a grid tie... the power you pay for does not always indicate the source of the power you get

Some people can actually live completely on renewable.  But the array has to be big enough for their usage.  In one home I lived in, we had enough power as long as:

  • It was a fully sunny day.
  • I didn't let the irrigation go for too long (we had a well).
  • We had no AC.  We used a stove in winter.  And in summer we used a special non-electric method that is too complicated to describe in a single sentence.
  • We watched how much kitchen power we used.

BTW, it was a pretty big array.  But in the end, our goal to live on solar alone meant that we spent a TON of money on the array and we STILL had to live like paupers to have a zero power bill.  Most of the time the bill was about $10 or $20.  I never got cash back because there were always rainy days which generated less power..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mores said:

Some people can actually live completely on renewable.  But the array has to be big enough for their usage.  In one home I lived in, we had enough power as long as:

  • It was a fully sunny day.
  • I didn't let the irrigation go for too long (we had a well).
  • We had no AC.  We used a stove in winter.  And in summer we used a special non-electric method that is too complicated to describe in a single sentence.
  • We watched how much kitchen power we used.

BTW, it was a pretty big array.  But in the end, our goal to live on solar alone meant that we spent a TON of money on the array and we STILL had to live like paupers to have a zero power bill.  Most of the time the bill was about $10 or $20.  I never got cash back because there were always rainy days which generated less power..

Which reinforces the idea that Solar does not scale well..  You have a big cost (the large array) you sacrificed a lot, and you still rarely broke even.  Now you did not mention a battery storage system..  That would be an additional cost but it would allow you to store your own excess for later use that might get you to the break even point or have less sacrifices.

But your example is not really typical of the home solar panel with grid tie setup.  Most of those the sacrifice is in the money for the panel not in big lifestyle changes.  And those people are going to pull in power from the grid sources (whatever they may be) when the solar panels are dark.  The fact that they might not be paying for this power does not change its source.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

And those people are going to pull in power from the grid sources (whatever they may be) when the solar panels are dark.  

That is the big Catch-22 in the system today. As renewable sources increase, there must still be sources to back them up. However, those sources can't operate profitably by running only once in a while so they are shutting down. 

Don't let all the information out there confuse you. The reality is that electrical grids are struggling right now at the operational level to manage the uncertainties created by adding all the current wind and solar sources. There is no way a grid could operate with 100% renewable power today as the technical capability does not exist. And as this speaker pointed out, it may not even be the right goal to pursue if we are to balance environmental damage with greenhouse gas climate control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 9:11 PM, anatess2 said:

I’m fairly sure I mentioned I’ve been researching this stuff for 2 years...

Nothing you said showed anything amounting to solar panels that generate power 90% of the time.  And a 24x8 roof cannot hold enough solar panels to generate power to keep an A/C unit running throughout the night regardless of the capacity of your battery banks.

Yes, as I noted, the AC unit could be problmatic.  There IS a way to provide that energy (had a family use it on a camping trip, the size of their solar panels, going off of memory (they were large, but not that large...portable) I think were around a 6x4, but they ONLY used it to power an  AC unit and a ice maker of all things), not sure how big their AC was though.  Now that I think about it, I don't think it was necessarily an AC, but what one would call a Swamp Cooler (and ever since I saw them with that have been wanting one of my own).  We went on the trip last summer.

IT WAS in the Mountains out west, so in reality they ONLY needed the AC probably for around a few hours of the night.  It depends on where you are in this.  Out East, it could be impossible to have a lot of electrical use (running an AC) all night.  My SiL works mostly out west.

In Utah, depending on what temperature you want it, it is very possible to have a small AC run for the portion of the evening you need it and let natural cooling take care of the rest, unless you live around St. George.  Most of the other areas of Utah, Northern half of Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have a great deal of cooling at night already, so a thermodynamic housing would be more effective from an energy standpoint. 

Each building is different and each situation is different.  It may be possible to run it off of solar, but it depends on how much energy you actually use (and that is really what it boils down to.   With the energy usage many are used to using these days, living completely off of solar may be impossible.  For others, it is completely possible.

As for the 90% of the time....that's how much they gain off of their solar usage.  It's just the facts.  I know some (not you) may not like this and cannot comprehend how anyone could get that much of their electricity from solar,  but no matter how they try to say it could not happen, it does not change the fact that this particular family is able to do this.

The amount that was used varied, and what they utilized varied.  They do not have heating from the solar specifically.  They use electricity, but the method that they use is different than that , they had a pellet stove and gas heating.  These use some electricity in starting and other factors, but the main sources of heating of those are from pellets and gas.  They also do not have AC.  One could say their electrical needs are a lot lower than what many use, but at the same time, they get most of their electricity from their solar.  Sometimes, however, they use off the grid (and other times, they give excess to the grid).  90% obviously is NOT 100% in their case, but those who live in sunnier climates probably could get 100% on what they use.

What it really boils down to is how much electricity one actually uses.  When our family has gone camping I know of at least one family that actually DOES get 100% of their power (and that includes an AC unit of all things...in a tent which is odd) via the solar panels they bring with them.  In some ways I think it may be more about LIFESTYLE than anything else in relation to how much power we demand to use, rather than what we actually need to use.

Nevertheless and 24x8 is really small (smaller than many tiny homes even, it's on the smaller side of them)  That gives you around 192 sq feet, though if you add a half level (like many do) that lies sort of like a second level but only on the sides of it, that could add another 95-100 sq feet for around 280-300 sq feet.  That would be tough to provide enough electricity to with solar no matter what just because the roof area you defined is small and you have such a small area to work with.  If you are living in a dry area I'd probably say take a look at the small type of swamp coolers/AC units the family (I mentioned them at the tope of this post) was using last year.  With an area that small, just one or two of them probably could cool you off.  They had batteries in them and supposedly (not tested myself and they didn't use them all night as the temperatures in the mountains might be 85 during the day, but at night fell to the 30s eventually) they would run for 7-10 hours on their battery power alone (the actual unit had a battery in it).  That unit cooled around a 50 square foot, so a few of them or something larger might work.  However, with that small a space for solar panels it might be hard to even get enough to keep the fridge and other appliances going to what you are used to.  I'd imagine the Fridge may actually be a tougher problem than the AC/Swamp cooler if you are in a dry area.  Of course, that ONLY applies to dry areas.

Furthermore, outside of dry areas, those swamp cooler AC type units are useless.  In the Philippines I imagine they would be next to worthless.  Same would apply with Florida.  Those types of units don't work well in those areas.  In Florida, I'd say just live outside for most of the time and forget the AC as with that size of a roof and the solar would be a TOUGH problem to solve (if it is solvable).   A pure AC unit probably take more energy than the Swamp cooler item, and with that small of a roof...probably hard to work out with how much you'd want to use the AC in Florida most of the time.  It be easier with a larger surface area on top.

Probably would be a lot easier with what I've seen more of which is around the 500 - 600 sq foot tiny homes, or at least those that are 400 sq feet.  Tough problem to solve.  Most likely, if you talk to a solar panel installation company they could come up with some solutions, but most likely almost all of them would require a drastic cut back in power.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yes, as I noted, the AC unit could be problmatic.  There IS a way to provide that energy (had a family use it on a camping trip, the size of their solar panels, going off of memory (they were large, but not that large...portable) I think were around a 6x4, but they ONLY used it to power an  AC unit and a ice maker of all things), not sure how big their AC was though.  Now that I think about it, I don't think it was necessarily an AC, but what one would call a Swamp Cooler (and ever since I saw them with that have been wanting one of my own).  We went on the trip last summer.

IT WAS in the Mountains out west, so in reality they ONLY needed the AC probably for around a few hours of the night.  It depends on where you are in this.  Out East, it could be impossible to have a lot of electrical use (running an AC) all night.  My SiL works mostly out west.

In Utah, depending on what temperature you want it, it is very possible to have a small AC run for the portion of the evening you need it and let natural cooling take care of the rest, unless you live around St. George.  Most of the other areas of Utah, Northern half of Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have a great deal of cooling at night already, so a thermodynamic housing would be more effective from an energy standpoint. 

Each building is different and each situation is different.  It may be possible to run it off of solar, but it depends on how much energy you actually use (and that is really what it boils down to.   With the energy usage many are used to using these days, living completely off of solar may be impossible.  For others, it is completely possible.

As for the 90% of the time....that's how much they gain off of their solar usage.  It's just the facts.  I know some (not you) may not like this and cannot comprehend how anyone could get that much of their electricity from solar,  but no matter how they try to say it could not happen, it does not change the fact that this particular family is able to do this.

The amount that was used varied, and what they utilized varied.  They do not have heating from the solar specifically.  They use electricity, but the method that they use is different than that , they had a pellet stove and gas heating.  These use some electricity in starting and other factors, but the main sources of heating of those are from pellets and gas.  They also do not have AC.  One could say their electrical needs are a lot lower than what many use, but at the same time, they get most of their electricity from their solar.  Sometimes, however, they use off the grid (and other times, they give excess to the grid).  90% obviously is NOT 100% in their case, but those who live in sunnier climates probably could get 100% on what they use.

What it really boils down to is how much electricity one actually uses.  When our family has gone camping I know of at least one family that actually DOES get 100% of their power (and that includes an AC unit of all things...in a tent which is odd) via the solar panels they bring with them.  In some ways I think it may be more about LIFESTYLE than anything else in relation to how much power we demand to use, rather than what we actually need to use.

Nevertheless and 24x8 is really small (smaller than many tiny homes even, it's on the smaller side of them)  That gives you around 192 sq feet, though if you add a half level (like many do) that lies sort of like a second level but only on the sides of it, that could add another 95-100 sq feet for around 280-300 sq feet.  That would be tough to provide enough electricity to with solar no matter what just because the roof area you defined is small and you have such a small area to work with.  If you are living in a dry area I'd probably say take a look at the small type of swamp coolers/AC units the family (I mentioned them at the tope of this post) was using last year.  With an area that small, just one or two of them probably could cool you off.  They had batteries in them and supposedly (not tested myself and they didn't use them all night as the temperatures in the mountains might be 85 during the day, but at night fell to the 30s eventually) they would run for 7-10 hours on their battery power alone (the actual unit had a battery in it).  That unit cooled around a 50 square foot, so a few of them or something larger might work.  However, with that small a space for solar panels it might be hard to even get enough to keep the fridge and other appliances going to what you are used to.  I'd imagine the Fridge may actually be a tougher problem than the AC/Swamp cooler if you are in a dry area.  Of course, that ONLY applies to dry areas.

Furthermore, outside of dry areas, those swamp cooler AC type units are useless.  In the Philippines I imagine they would be next to worthless.  Same would apply with Florida.  Those types of units don't work well in those areas.  In Florida, I'd say just live outside for most of the time and forget the AC as with that size of a roof and the solar would be a TOUGH problem to solve (if it is solvable).   A pure AC unit probably take more energy than the Swamp cooler item, and with that small of a roof...probably hard to work out with how much you'd want to use the AC in Florida most of the time.  It be easier with a larger surface area on top.

Probably would be a lot easier with what I've seen more of which is around the 500 - 600 sq foot tiny homes, or at least those that are 400 sq feet.  Tough problem to solve.  Most likely, if you talk to a solar panel installation company they could come up with some solutions, but most likely almost all of them would require a drastic cut back in power.

We're not talking about A/C units.  We're talking about solar energy and your claim that solar can generate energy 90% of the time.  It doesn't generate energy 90% of the time.  So you'll have to store the energy (if you even have an array that produces more wattage than you consume during sunlight hours) in battery banks so you can use them when the solar array is not generating energy.

Sure.  I can use solely solar power in a tiny house if all I have is my computer, the water pump, the fridge, and a couple LED lights and the fan for the composting toilet.  Anything more than that and you'll need a bigger solar array than the house and lots of batteries that take up space in a tiny.  No, you can't run a swamp cooler from Texas to Florida nor fit it in a tiny house.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 4:42 PM, anatess2 said:

We're not talking about A/C units.  We're talking about solar energy and your claim that solar can generate energy 90% of the time.  It doesn't generate energy 90% of the time.  So you'll have to store the energy (if you even have an array that produces more wattage than you consume during sunlight hours) in battery banks so you can use them when the solar array is not generating energy.

Sure.  I can use solely solar power in a tiny house if all I have is my computer, the water pump, the fridge, and a couple LED lights and the fan for the composting toilet.  Anything more than that and you'll need a bigger solar array than the house and lots of batteries that take up space in a tiny.  No, you can't run a swamp cooler from Texas to Florida nor fit it in a tiny house.

His inference was different than what Mores claimed, and what I stated was in the same line.  The electricity that solar generates can POWER something for MORE than 30% of the time, even if the sun is not out.  Otherwise, the claims of the talk the gentleman gave really DOES ignore a LOT of what goes into power generation.  The gentleman tried to argue that the sources of solar only generate electricity to a maximum of 30% of the year (which is actually untrue with current solar technology...that one is actually a pretty blatant lie...though he may be accurate in regards to wind power...depending on WHERE those wind farms are...the ones by Oakland going east actually provide far more consistently than the speech stated also) but his statements and discussion went more into PROVISION of power rather than generation of power in regards to availability and usage.  Thus, though he said generation, his argument had nothing to do with generating power in subsistance, but how that power was useful in how it was provided in powering things.  However, if we get technical, Mores went on a strawman argument in what I STATED and what I was focusing on, which related to HOW the gentleman was discussing power (generating was the word, but the usage had nothing to do with generation, but power usage which deals with how much power is consistently provided).

In that light...

My statement had NOTHING to do with generating...it was PROVIDING...and if one is technical, there is a world of difference between generating and providing.  Even if the sun only generated energy 20% of the time, that is not specifically how much of the electricity it will provide, especially when one has a storage medium.  The video was trying to provide a similar strawman argument within the first 3 minutes (if one actually listened to what the guy was saying in regards to his actual topic) in the same light. 

If one is all in with nuclear, they won't need to be convinced of his argument.  However, the video didn't really convince a solar energy advocate from what I heard, as the terms he was using vs. the arguments he was providing was, as I pointed out within the first 3 minutes...full of fallacies in relation to what he was saying (which was especially true in regards to his generating electricity by switching the words generating and providing or utilization of electricity).

On a different topic...

A lot of the point of Tiny Homes at first was to minimize one's impact which did mean a composting toilet and a lot lower power generation (so one did not have to be connected to plumbing or have electrical hookups, etc).  There has been a luxury tiny home market that has popped up (and brought to the forefront by shows on various channels), but the original tiny homes were more economical and environmental friendly (plus having the added benefit for those in places like San Francisco and other areas where getting a bigger house is exhorbitant in cost) for those who got them.

Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time to get into details (and haven't been on line a lot recently) as I'm about to go off on my yearly research (so gone a few months)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The gentleman tried to argue that the sources of solar only generate electricity to a maximum of 30% of the year (which is actually untrue with current solar technology...that one is actually a pretty blatant lie...

Others have tried to explain it, I guess I'll try again.

Please understand JJ:
- Solar panels do not generate electricity in the dark.
- Any place you go on earth, it's dark like half the time.  Because the sun goes down.  It's called nighttime.
- No really, solar panels don't generate electricity at nighttime.  If you believe otherwise, please post a link.  I'd like to hear about it. But yeah, even with "current solar technology", I'm thinking you still need the sun not behind the earth to power a solar panel.
- So no really, when you start with 100% of a year, and it's dark at nighttime, and nighttime is about half of a day, the absolute maximum for that year would be around 50%.  (Yes, at some latitudes in some seasons, days are longer.  But then the seasons change, and nights get longer.)

 

Here's a random graph from a random weather station in a random location in Colorado.  You can tell when night is happening, and when day is happening.

image.png.b87069dd2c6a52e83a3dff7cbba14ab7.png

 

We see the valleys during a day, indicating the sun is behind clouds.  We see the day in the middle where pretty much the whole day is overcast.  

I think JohnsonJones is saying that solar tech is getting better at capturing/generating electricity even during overcast conditions.    Not sure how good it's getting, but I'm glad to hear it.   

JJ, I get what you're saying about generation vs providing.  I also keep hearing exciting things about next generation batteries finally breaking some limits that physics places on current technology.  Happy to hear that too - I want my dang StarTrek phaser, and you just can't do that with a bunch of AAA Duracells.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

His inference was different than what Mores claimed, and what I stated was in the same line.  The electricity that solar generates can POWER something for MORE than 30% of the time, even if the sun is not out.  Otherwise, the claims of the talk the gentleman gave really DOES ignore a LOT of what goes into power generation.  The gentleman tried to argue that the sources of solar only generate electricity to a maximum of 30% of the year (which is actually untrue with current solar technology...that one is actually a pretty blatant lie...though he may be accurate in regards to wind power...depending on WHERE those wind farms are...the ones by Oakland going east actually provide far more consistently than the speech stated also) but his statements and discussion went more into PROVISION of power rather than generation of power in regards to availability and usage.  Thus, though he said generation, his argument had nothing to do with generating power in subsistance, but how that power was useful in how it was provided in powering things.  However, if we get technical, Mores went on a strawman argument in what I STATED and what I was focusing on, which related to HOW the gentleman was discussing power (generating was the word, but the usage had nothing to do with generation, but power usage which deals with how much power is consistently provided).

In that light...

My statement had NOTHING to do with generating...it was PROVIDING...and if one is technical, there is a world of difference between generating and providing.  Even if the sun only generated energy 20% of the time, that is not specifically how much of the electricity it will provide, especially when one has a storage medium.  The video was trying to provide a similar strawman argument within the first 3 minutes (if one actually listened to what the guy was saying in regards to his actual topic) in the same light. 

If one is all in with nuclear, they won't need to be convinced of his argument.  However, the video didn't really convince a solar energy advocate from what I heard, as the terms he was using vs. the arguments he was providing was, as I pointed out within the first 3 minutes...full of fallacies in relation to what he was saying (which was especially true in regards to his generating electricity by switching the words generating and providing or utilization of electricity).

On a different topic...

A lot of the point of Tiny Homes at first was to minimize one's impact which did mean a composting toilet and a lot lower power generation (so one did not have to be connected to plumbing or have electrical hookups, etc).  There has been a luxury tiny home market that has popped up (and brought to the forefront by shows on various channels), but the original tiny homes were more economical and environmental friendly (plus having the added benefit for those in places like San Francisco and other areas where getting a bigger house is exhorbitant in cost) for those who got them.

Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time to get into details (and haven't been on line a lot recently) as I'm about to go off on my yearly research (so gone a few months)

The video was pretty simple.  Solar panels only provide (generate, same thing) electricity 30% of the time.  This is more true than 90%.

No, I’m not going Tiny to go glamping.  I’m going Tiny because it’s currently my best solution to self sufficiency and sustainability in the Philippines and I can’t expect to teach people the lifestyle unless I’ve lived it.  I’m no Al Gore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long can I expect my solar panels to generate power that are on my home roof?  I got them about two years ago.  I heard they will generate power for over sixty-five years but they lose about 3% effectiveness per year from when they were brand new.  Is this correct information?

Edited by Still_Small_Voice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 5/20/2019 at 7:49 PM, estradling75 said:

It does get confusing when people say they install solar panels and cut there power bill to zero... ( I know I am wanting to)  That make it sound like all the power is coming from Solar.

But the simple fact is with Solar with a grid tie... the power you pay for does not always indicate the source of the power you get

Thus far our power bill is negative, meaning our solar panels are producing more power than we use and thus we get a refund every month.

It is true that all power is tied to the grid and thus you can't be sure that every electron that you use is the same exact electron as the one you produce; it just means that the solar is producing more than we are using.  Someone else on the grid is using some of the power that we produce.

Obviously, since we don't have batteries, we are using someone else's power at night.  Someone uses ours in the daytime.  Either way though, we still produce more power than we use.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
12 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

How long can I expect my solar panels to generate power that are on my home roof?  I got them about two years ago.  I heard they will generate power for over sixty-five years but they lose about 3% effectiveness per year from when they were brand new.  Is this correct information?

It depends on the solar panels.  Sunpower Panels, for example, are expected to lose 8% after 25 years.

https://us.sunpower.com/home-solar/solar-cell-technology-solutions

3% sounds high.  Most newer panels are better than that, at least if we are to believe the manufacturers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott

The problem with nuclear is that too many people are afraid of it (I'm not one of them) and don't want it in their backyards.  It's more than just the plants, but even moreso the waste disposal.  The mines too.  Plus, some have a fear that the nuclear material can become weaponized.

The US seemed to be on track to becoming more friendly, but the Japan earthquake really scared a lot of people and set things back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

How long can I expect my solar panels to generate power that are on my home roof?  I got them about two years ago.  I heard they will generate power for over sixty-five years but they lose about 3% effectiveness per year from when they were brand new.  Is this correct information?

In 65 years they will have lost 195% of their ability to generate power.  Might want to toss them by year 33. 

Of course, that assumes no serious hail between now and then, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Mores
On 5/25/2019 at 10:06 AM, NightSG said:

In 65 years they will have lost 195% of their ability to generate power.  Might want to toss them by year 33. 

Of course, that assumes no serious hail between now and then, too. 

Actually, they've changed the estimates on photovoltaic degradation.  It seems that their early estimates were based on a straight line model.  It turns out it is more similar to a half-life model.  So, at 33 years, they are not at 0%.  They're more like 65%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 5/24/2019 at 3:47 PM, NeuroTypical said:

- No really, solar panels don't generate electricity at nighttime.  If you believe otherwise, please post a link.  I'd like to hear about it.

JJ, I get what you're saying about generation vs providing. 

I think you've touched on the reason why the public at large will never accept nuclear.  It is the number of people (like JJ) on the peak of the Dunning-Kruger Graph that are holding it back.  And sorry to say that it is the Politicians in power who are the most likely to be at that peak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
47 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

And just like that, Mores gives me the rare gift of a new way to make fun of humans.  Best Monday ever!

Image result for Dunning-Kruger Graph

There is another term used for the "I know everything" point.  But I won't repeat that at this juncture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Mores

I don't know if this is a good thing or bad thing.

https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/generation/52/772999/u-s-renewable-energy-generating-capacity-has-now-surpassed-coal.html

I just want to know the cost.  If it costs the same (without government benefits/discounts) then I'm all for it.  But I wonder if that's the case.  It hasn't in the past.  We'll see in the coming years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share