Xcel Energy – Colorado Plans To Deliver 80% Renewable Energy By 2030

[NamMedevac 70]

Japan Races to build new Coal Fire Plants In Spite of Global Warming.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-fukushima.html

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/coal-king-india

Here you go Bruce T.  The above post from NYT for all the wokes.  Other large nations still using coal plants for energy.  Easy google search is your friend.

Thanks RV for another detailed report.  Cheers

https://www.facebook.com/CaptBillPerkinsUNRescuePilot

Edited March 18, 2021 by NamMedevac 70

[bruce t]

NamMedivac it's only there if you want to look for it.

And if you 'want' to look you can find claims that approx 1600 new coal fired power plants are in the making.

But I'm not going to do the work for those who simply want links.

[NamMedevac 70]

I agree Bruce.  When I provide links/evidence to support my/our positions it usually shuts everything down and silence is golden.  The NYT is the holy grail to many others so I used their timely story about Japan coal plants and ended the thread.  If google search is quick and easy for me then it is so for our critics. As you said everyone can throw links around to support their opinions.  Cheers to all.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by NamMedevac 70

[Chalkie]

22 hours ago, NamMedevac 70 said:

Japan Races to build new Coal Fire Plants In Spite of Global Warming.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-fukushima.html

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/coal-king-india

Here you go Bruce T.  The above post from NYT for all the wokes.  Other large nations still using coal plants for energy.  Easy google search is your friend.

Thanks RV for another detailed report.  Cheers

https://www.facebook.com/CaptBillPerkinsUNRescuePilot

Pardon me, but what exactly does this have to do with XCEL Energy in Colorado??

[Al F]

18 minutes ago, Chalkie said:

Pardon me, but what exactly does this have to do with XCEL Energy in Colorado??

Excellent question.

In Japan the hysteria about nuclear energy is causing shut down of a major source of Japan's electric.  

It seems to me that so many so called environmentalists seem to ignore that quickest way to slow down carbon emissions is to increase nuclear power electric generation.  

Yes there are problems with nuclear power, but there are problems and trade offs with all the ways to make electricity.   

[Al F]

22 hours ago, NamMedevac 70 said:

Japan Races to build new Coal Fire Plants In Spite of Global Warming.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-fukushima.html

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/coal-king-india

Here you go Bruce T.  The above post from NYT for all the wokes.  Other large nations still using coal plants for energy.  Easy google search is your friend.

Thanks RV for another detailed report.  Cheers

https://www.facebook.com/CaptBillPerkinsUNRescuePilot

Thanks for the links.  Interesting reading.

What are yours and Bruce T's thoughts about what is happening in both Japan and India and how it pertains to this thread?

Also what should be done in both countries as alternatives to the use of coal.  

[NamMedevac 70]

I was responding to Bruce T comment about his reply to RV's post about energy that involves use of wind, solar, gas, and/or COAL, etc., etc.

The standard woke answer for alternative use of coal is solar, wind and/or more nuclear.  Capt. Woke here, there and everywhere.  Thanks for caring.

[noteven]

Here is a 10 minute podcast on BBC's "More or Less" about nuclear generation safety:

BBC More or Less - Is Nuclear Power Safer Than You Think?

(caution presenters have UK accents)

The great thing about this program is if you disagree you can write directly to them and challenge what they are presenting vs hollering on a forum.

Edited March 19, 2021 by noteven

[DJohns]

Back to the original topic, why are we so concerned about renewable energy anyway? The world has tons of clean burning natural gas but it is still off limits. Every semi truck in America could run on Nat Gas but why not?

Finally the United States loves ethanol but do you know how much diesel is used to truck corn to the plant and then truck the mash back to a feed lot to be fed to cattle?  Not to mention that ethanol plants use large amounts of water.

So much could be done about energy conservation but instead we focus  free non polluting energy instead of making the system more efficient.

 

[NamMedevac 70]

Thanks noteven for BBC link.  After Nam I flew for many years in Asia and ME with the Brits and they constantly reminded me that USA is still their serf colony to the rest of the world.  Wonderful people those Brits.  Capt. Cheers here.

DJohns good point you make about natural gas.  It is cleaner than coal, safer than nuclear and more reliable than wind or solar IMHO.  Happy Trails.

[folivier]

No, we do not love ethanol.  Ethanol was forced onto the American public by our gov't. listening to enviros.  Ethanol is a boondoggle that has resulted in the price of foodstuffs to rise, fuel economy and fuel costs to rise.  Now if ethanol were replaced with methanol (we do have the technology now to overcome the problems with meth.) it would make more sense.  Methanol can be produced from waste products.

[Al F]

4 hours ago, NamMedevac 70 said:

Thanks noteven for BBC link.  After Nam I flew for many years in Asia and ME with the Brits and they constantly reminded me that USA is still their serf colony to the rest of the world.  Wonderful people those Brits.  Capt. Cheers here.

DJohns good point you make about natural gas.  It is cleaner than coal, safer than nuclear and more reliable than wind or solar IMHO.  Happy Trails.

I guess I don't understand the need to talk bad about the Brits.  Is it to downplay the credibility of the people making the podcast or what? 

This is a conversation about energy, not about who looks down on others.  

Not that I disagree that many of the Brits do look down on the USA.  People in most countries think their people and country is somewhat better or above other countries.  Heck, cities, states, neighborhoods, and even neighbors think they are better than others.  Kind of human nature. 

Just wondering how it pertains to topic of energy.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Al F

[RV_]

I do not understand why Ethanol ever got into our tanks to cause nothing but problems in small engines. I bought a battery 60 volt mower and a Battery 60 Volt Snowblower. Both work great and I have never used up one of my two batteries for either task. And no more start issues from ethanol every spring. Yes I used Stabil green. I have only one ICE engine now, it's in the Subaru. All my hand tools are battery Ryobi, as are my leaf blowers, hedge trimmer, and 18 volt string trimmer and edger that fits all the standard attachments like brush blade and tiller. I even have a Ryobi 18 volt chainsaw that works great for the little I have to prune in the city.

Excerpt:

"

Awareness

Regarding the recent lifting of the E15 summertime ban, Kiser reinforced the importance of consumers paying close attention to the fuel being purchased.

“As the fuels marketplace is evolving” Kiser explains, “you can no longer count on being able to put the same fuel in your mower that you also use in your car or truck. You must pay attention at the pump so you can protect your power equipment. You must put the right fuel in the right engine product”.

OPEI’s current Look Before You Pump campaign reinforces the importance of consumer mindfulness when fueling."

Source with much more here for folks who still have small engines like inverter gasoline gensets and : https://thrivingyard.com/ethanol-in-small-engines/#:~:text=Ethanol damages the integrity of plastic and rubber,and altering of the combustion and compression ratios.

 

[Al F]

I don't know of anyone with a background in science who is standing up and shouting to the world:  "Putting more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere is a good thing.  We need to burn more fossil fuels.  We need to warm the world even more, melt the ice caps, raise the level of the oceans." 

I would think that people would WANT to find ways to reduce the amount of CO2 being produced.  

I would think that finding ways to reduce the use of fossil fuel would be a good thing. 

Wind, Solar and Nuclear are ways to do that.  Geothermal is another potential source. 

[DJohns]

27 minutes ago, Al F said:

I don't know of anyone with a background in science who is standing up and shouting to the world:  "Putting more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere is a good thing.  We need to burn more fossil fuels.  We need to warm the world even more, melt the ice caps, raise the level of the oceans." 

I would think that people would WANT to find ways to reduce the amount of CO2 being produced.  

I would think that finding ways to reduce the use of fossil fuel would be a good thing. 

Wind, Solar and Nuclear are ways to do that.  Geothermal is another potential source. 

I have a question. If you are so concerned about carbon why don't you drive a toyota prius instead of a winnebago and a colorado pickup

[Randyretired]

The thing to remember is like this Colorado Springs incident we do not currently have the renewable generation sources for these occasional severe cold spells.  In fact when we have a cold spell like this, solar becomes useless and wind is not usually favorable.  Hence the requirement to purchase fossil fuels.  RV and others seem to loathe the fossil fuels in this case but I believe it kept us from a Texas type of disaster.   In fact I posted about this fossil fuel use and the high cost we will have to pay.  Backup generation will be needed to supplement solar and wind until batteries or some other reasonable storage is available and deployed.

[RV_]

I agree Al, and most are beginning to understand as the tech improves like possibly cracking fusion with so many companies competing right now to bring fusion to working and marketing smaller distributed power generation plants.

For all the naysayers that "claim" tax dollars are paying for fusion research the following is from a private company hoping to beat the rest with their own privately funded R&D.

Current news:

"With recent breakthroughs in fusion technology, and new capital accelerating the pace of development, fusion energy is advancing quickly. Governments and companies around the globe have realized the potential of fusion energy and are investing in the future of limitless, clean energy.

Recent Milestones In Fusion Energy

Across the world, a new generation of machines are being built that will push the envelope of fusion science and lead to breakeven – the point where energy input is matched by the energy output by the fusion reaction – and beyond. Since the first machines were constructed in the 1950s, exponential improvements in energy output have been achieved.

• In 1997, the Joint European Torus (JET) at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in the UK achieved a fusion power record, 65% of the way to breakeven.
• Laser fusion also progressed, with the National Ignition Facility reporting higher energy yields.
• In Germany the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator, an alternative type of magnetic confinement device, began operation in February 2016 and is exceeding performance expectations.
• Meanwhile, construction is progressing on the ITER tokamak in Cadarache, France, and first plasma is anticipated for 2025.

 

Fusion is on the cusp of a revolution.

While large scale experiments continue, General Fusion leads the race to commercialize fusion energy. The company benefits from the agility and efficiency of the private sector to bring fusion power to the grid.

Industry leaders and investors see urgent need for clean, on-demand energy sources to meet decarbonization goals. As a result, General Fusion’s Fusion Demonstration Plant program will construct and subsequently operate a prototype facility in power-plant relevant conditions.

Fusion energy is a national priority for the European Union, China, South Korea, and Japan – all have specific goals, timescales, and funding to implement successful fusion energy programs. In addition to independent national projects, 35 countries representing more than half of the world’s population are collaborating on the ITER tokamak project under construction in the south of France.

 

At the same time, there has been significant growth in privately-backed fusion companies, with leading investors taking positions to capitalize on the sector’s potential.

 

Advances in plasma physics, computing, modern electronics and materials science have progressed the technology to the edge of being a viable source of power, and put fusion energy in a position to disrupt the multi-trillion dollar energy industry."

Source: https://generalfusion.com/progress-in-fusion-energy-technology/#:~:text=Progress in Fusion Development is Accelerating at Projects,pace of development, fusion energy is advancing quickly.

 

[RV_]

19 minutes ago, DJohns said:

I have a question. If you are so concerned about carbon why don't you drive a toyota prius instead of a winnebago and a colorado pickup

DJohns,

I started this thread to discuss energy. But since you mention it, my Tesla , my battery tools and lawn equipment including the mower, the snow blower, the hedge trimmer, string trimmer and edger head can take my tiller head and brush blade too. I still have the Subaru Forester that uses gas but that may soon go away when the Cybertruck, made in Texas by Texans, comes out later this year or early next. Then we just might become a two Tesla family early depending on the length of the production model. In a couple of years Tesla will debut the Model 2, a compact Tesla that will sell for ≦ $25k. As long as it is offered in AWD we will likely be getting that model. Then I can sell my last five gallon gas can.

It seems in addition to being an aging crowd here, some are a bit behind, or just behind. I may be old but I have a lot to look forward to yet. And when I have to hang up my keys, my car can drive me without having to pay a chauffeur.

[RV_]

46 minutes ago, Randyretired said:

The thing to remember is like this Colorado Springs incident we do not currently have the renewable generation sources for these occasional severe cold spells.  In fact when we have a cold spell like this, solar becomes useless and wind is not usually favorable.  Hence the requirement to purchase fossil fuels.  RV and others seem to loathe the fossil fuels in this case but I believe it kept us from a Texas type of disaster.   In fact I posted about this fossil fuel use and the high cost we will have to pay.  Backup generation will be needed to supplement solar and wind until batteries or some other reasonable storage is available and deployed.

I bolded the quote Randy and I agree - not currently but soon. We are just getting to the point where we can operate them  in cold. How cold?

Excerpt:

"Wind turbines work in the winter. Of course they do! For some wind farms, the windiest time of the year is during the winter. Certified wind turbines can operate down to -40° without interruption. Turbines operate year-round in Northern regions because they have special design features. These features, (like small heaters for electronics, wind speed sensors, generators and gearbox oil) come at a cost, so wind turbines made for warm climates generally don’t have these features.

But why are some wind turbines occasionally shut down in the winter? The answer will surprise you!"

This is all about Texas being the country's largest Wind energy producer: https://windurance.com/2021/02/16/frozen-wind-turbines-do-wind-turbines-even-work-in-the-winter/

And what research is being done with wind turbines? Canada seems to lead the way there in our hemisphere. They're on it!

Excerpt:

"This is the basis for CE-O’s assessment of cold climate on Canadian wind plant performance. For this study, CE-O analyzed production data from 23 wind farms across eight Canadian provinces with the objective of quantifying the degree to which cold climate operation affects wind energy production in Canada. Over the six year study period from May 2010 – April 2016, the average loss factor for the summer period from May to October was estimated to be 4.2%, compared to 8.1% for the winter period from November to April, resulting in an average cold climate loss factor of 3.9%. For individual wind farms, the 2010 – 2016 average cold climate loss factor ranged from -6% (higher losses in summer than winter) to 16%. Cold climate losses were estimated to total 959 GWh across the country each year, representing lost revenue of $113 million annually. The granularity of the monthly production data prevented identifying losses related to non-meteorological sources such as maintenance, outages or curtailment. Further research will help to accurately classify and quantify losses directly attributable to winter weather conditions."

Source: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/energy-sources-distribution/renewables/wind-energy/wind-energy-cold-climates/7321#:~:text=With the installation of “cold weather packages” which,turbines can operate in temperatures down to -30C.

Y'all objecting to government funding don't mind if Canada spends tax dollars on wind research in addition to our wind turbine private/public company's R&D, do you?

Edited March 19, 2021 by RV_

[Al F]

2 hours ago, DJohns said:

I have a question. If you are so concerned about carbon why don't you drive a toyota prius instead of a winnebago and a colorado pickup

Because we like to travel.  Oh, and we, just the two of us, live in an 1800 sqft house heated with gas and run the air conditioner when needed.  We are horrible folks.  

I am waiting to hear the reasons why others on this discussion feel why it is a good thing to NOT do anything to add renewables or or other clean energy and to put more CO2 into the atmosphere.  

But on the other hand we leave Texas in the summer so our AC doesn't run and in the winter we sometimes leave the house for a couple of months for the desert SW so we don't use gas to heat the house.  🙂

Oh, well, I guess that pollutes the planet more than if we stayed home.  We are bad people again.  😬 

[Randyretired]

2 hours ago, RV_ said:

I bolded the quote Randy and I agree - not currently but soon. We are just getting to the point where we can operate them  in cold. How cold?

Excerpt:

"Wind turbines work in the winter. Of course they do! For some wind farms, the windiest time of the year is during the winter. Certified wind turbines can operate down to -40° without interruption. Turbines operate year-round in Northern regions because they have special design features. These features, (like small heaters for electronics, wind speed sensors, generators and gearbox oil) come at a cost, so wind turbines made for warm climates generally don’t have these features.

But why are some wind turbines occasionally shut down in the winter? The answer will surprise you!"

This is all about Texas being the country's largest Wind energy producer: https://windurance.com/2021/02/16/frozen-wind-turbines-do-wind-turbines-even-work-in-the-winter/

And what research is being done with wind turbines? Canada seems to lead the way there in our hemisphere. They're on it!

Excerpt:

"This is the basis for CE-O’s assessment of cold climate on Canadian wind plant performance. For this study, CE-O analyzed production data from 23 wind farms across eight Canadian provinces with the objective of quantifying the degree to which cold climate operation affects wind energy production in Canada. Over the six year study period from May 2010 – April 2016, the average loss factor for the summer period from May to October was estimated to be 4.2%, compared to 8.1% for the winter period from November to April, resulting in an average cold climate loss factor of 3.9%. For individual wind farms, the 2010 – 2016 average cold climate loss factor ranged from -6% (higher losses in summer than winter) to 16%. Cold climate losses were estimated to total 959 GWh across the country each year, representing lost revenue of $113 million annually. The granularity of the monthly production data prevented identifying losses related to non-meteorological sources such as maintenance, outages or curtailment. Further research will help to accurately classify and quantify losses directly attributable to winter weather conditions."

Source: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/energy-sources-distribution/renewables/wind-energy/wind-energy-cold-climates/7321#:~:text=With the installation of “cold weather packages” which,turbines can operate in temperatures down to -30C.

Y'all objecting to government funding don't mind if Canada spends tax dollars on wind research in addition to our wind turbine private/public company's R&D, do you?

I posted this as the wind is not favorable during these cold spells and that is because sustained winds often are not blowing during the severe cold spells.  That is true here and is certainly true in Texas.  Texas wind mills produce very little power during the winter as a whole.  The cost we are burdened with for this fossil  fuel is the cost of standby  power needed when renewable energy is not available.   This is a cost few will acknowledge.  I am not convinced it is reasonable to modify these windmills for severe cold.

[bruce t]

This argument/debate has a disconnect. Those in favour of renewables think that everyone else is an anti renewable and climate denier. That's not the case. Sure there are some who say dig more coal, drill more wells etc etc. Heck I would say I'm greener than anyone here. I wont step on an ant if I can help it. I go into meltdown every time I see a tree cut down. The debate isn't, or shouldn't be, about having renewables or not having renewables. The debate should be about how we get there. RV seems to think he's the expert on this subject or at least an expert on finding a web page that suits his view or the world. He thinks every one else is a neanderthal for still believing in fossil fuels.

Reality check. - While the likes of Europe, Australia and the USA fight among themselves on the best way to go green and in doing so destroy their economies there's one major country that is giving the middle finger to all of us. Most countries in the world signed up to the Paris agreement. The Paris agreement sees everyone cut their emissions by 2030 and 2050. Except China. Yes China is building all the wind turbines and solar panels to help us all go green. And in doing so they pollute like a drunken cigar smoker. In just 17 days they emit more pollution than Australia dose in a whole year. Yet the Paris agreement allows them to keep increasing their emissions until 2060. While we bicker here about details and facts we find on a web site China keeps on its merry way. Building more coal fired power stations. It cut cleaner Australian coal in favour of dirty Mongolian and Russian coal. China doesn't give a rats about problems in Colorado or Texas. It just wants to make more money from fools like us. Wrecking our economies for what? For making China richer. 

And what does China do with all its wealth? It's building a military force that will soon surpass the USA's. And then what? Here in the Western pacific there is a lot of action going re China's position. How many on this forum know what the Quad Group is? No Cheating RV. No looking it up on the web and being a know it all!! Let me tell you what the Quad Group is. The USA, Japan, India and Australia. Did you know they had a meeting last weekend? All the leaders not just the office boys. And the big concern was China's military growth and their bullying tactics. Look at yesterdays China, USA meeting in Alaska.

Why am I writing this? Because while many here are pushing to kill your economy you are distracted from the real enemy. And the enemy isn't emissions. It's China. RV are you prepared to send your grand kids to fight China just because you are so blinded by an ideology?

Wake up. We can go green. But not at the expense of the economy. This isn't a practice at getting things right. Its the real thing. If we can get China to cut just 30% of their emissions then we can all back off a bit. But until you have the b***s to stand up to China anything we all do is pointless. Drive your Teslar. Live in a cave. But without addressing China you are all banging your heads against the Great Wall of China.

 

 

[hemsteadc]

9 minutes ago, bruce t said:

Drive your Teslar.

I have no response to your argument, but you must stop calling it a Teslar if you want to be more credible. I know it's not a typo.

Edited March 19, 2021 by hemsteadc

[Chalkie]

Hey, Derek! Since you started this thread perhaps you could edit the title as it has become so far derailed as to be a complete freakin' train wreck over the original subject.

[Al F]

12 hours ago, bruce t said:

This argument/debate has a disconnect. Those in favour of renewables think that everyone else is an anti renewable and climate denier. That's not the case. Sure there are some who say dig more coal, drill more wells etc etc. Heck I would say I'm greener than anyone here. I wont step on an ant if I can help it. I go into meltdown every time I see a tree cut down. The debate isn't, or shouldn't be, about having renewables or not having renewables. The debate should be about how we get there. RV seems to think he's the expert on this subject or at least an expert on finding a web page that suits his view or the world. He thinks every one else is a neanderthal for still believing in fossil fuels.

Reality check. - While the likes of Europe, Australia and the USA fight among themselves on the best way to go green and in doing so destroy their economies there's one major country that is giving the middle finger to all of us. Most countries in the world signed up to the Paris agreement. The Paris agreement sees everyone cut their emissions by 2030 and 2050. Except China. Yes China is building all the wind turbines and solar panels to help us all go green. And in doing so they pollute like a drunken cigar smoker. In just 17 days they emit more pollution than Australia dose in a whole year. Yet the Paris agreement allows them to keep increasing their emissions until 2060. While we bicker here about details and facts we find on a web site China keeps on its merry way. Building more coal fired power stations. It cut cleaner Australian coal in favour of dirty Mongolian and Russian coal. China doesn't give a rats about problems in Colorado or Texas. It just wants to make more money from fools like us. Wrecking our economies for what? For making China richer. 

And what does China do with all its wealth? It's building a military force that will soon surpass the USA's. And then what? Here in the Western pacific there is a lot of action going re China's position. How many on this forum know what the Quad Group is? No Cheating RV. No looking it up on the web and being a know it all!! Let me tell you what the Quad Group is. The USA, Japan, India and Australia. Did you know they had a meeting last weekend? All the leaders not just the office boys. And the big concern was China's military growth and their bullying tactics. Look at yesterdays China, USA meeting in Alaska.

Why am I writing this? Because while many here are pushing to kill your economy you are distracted from the real enemy. And the enemy isn't emissions. It's China. RV are you prepared to send your grand kids to fight China just because you are so blinded by an ideology?

Wake up. We can go green. But not at the expense of the economy. This isn't a practice at getting things right. Its the real thing. If we can get China to cut just 30% of their emissions then we can all back off a bit. But until you have the b***s to stand up to China anything we all do is pointless. Drive your Teslar. Live in a cave. But without addressing China you are all banging your heads against the Great Wall of China.

 

 

Bruce t, thank you for stating your position in a well written statement.

I don't know why you would think just because people are in favor of continuing to build renewables and other energy sources, that don't pump CO2 into the atmosphere, that they are against taking on China and/or thinking China is not the biggest threat this world facing.  Perhaps far more dangerous than climate change.

It is fantastic to see that the USA is in international talks with like the Quad Group.   We need more talks and cooperation from the European community as well to combat China.   It is great that we, again, are starting to talk about international cooperation, instead of screw the world, we will go-it-alone. 

That is why we should never have pull out of the treaty with the Far East block of nations (I'm sorry don't remember the proper name for the treaty) in 2017 or 2018 to go into a go-it-alone policy.   As I understand it China was not part of that group.  Since we pulled out of that treaty, China has greatly increased their influence in that area.   

You also don't fight a nation like China by a go-it-alone policy.  It takes international cooperation to stand up to a big bully.  

This is a bit of an aside: 

--  I don't find much difference in the Far Right Conservatives and the Far Left Liberals.  All either one wants to do is state that their way is the only way and everyone else is flat out wrong.  There are ideas and solutions from both sides that are very useful and could be implemented is some fashion. 

--  This business of just because one party is in control all the other party can and will say is NO, NO, NO you are wrong.

--  I have a huge gripe about folks who, in discussions like these, throw out one or two line statements and follow up with I am not going to give links or provide details on what they believe about the statement or back it up with details about what in the statement they feel is good or bad -- or correct or incorrect -- or why something is happening.  An example is "Japan building coal fired energy plants" that came up earlier in this thread.  Absolutely, Japan building coal fired plants is bad for the world, but there are reasons why they are doing this.  I don't really agree with their reasons, but there are reasons.  Those reasons were detailed in the link provided by Nammedevac.