US cities are going to struggle to green up their act by 2050 Two-hundred and fifty US cities have committed to transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 in the face of slow global progress. However, researchers have now concluded most will fail and are likely to meet just 10 percent of their targets in the next 30 years. The study, conducted by researchers from Baylor …
Depends on where you live. I'm in the northeastern U.S. Where I live, the sun has been (partially) visible on only two days in the last two weeks. And at the moment, my roof is covered in snow. Solar would be completely pointless here between from November through February, and it isn't that great in late fall or early spring either.
In southern US (and southern Europe), PV can be useful, because there are more sunny days and peak output coincides with peak demand (for aircon). At temperate latitudes (northern US and northern Europe), PV panels will struggle over their useful life to repay the energy consumed during their manufacture - which, given they're mostly made in China, using energy derived from burning coal, means they do very little to reduce global CO2 emissions; though they're great for subsidy harvesting, and transferring money from the relatively poor to the relatively wealthy.
As someone who lives around 40 miles from London, England (to use the US way of describing the metropolis) and has 6x330w solar panels on the roof of my house, I know that it works.
Last calendar year, they generated 2.14MW of power.
To buy that leccy from the grid would have cost me well over £750.00. Looking back at the past history of PV generation, those solar panels have now paid for themselves (around last June). From now on, I'm in profit with them.
Solar does work. I just wish that I had more space on the roof for more panels.
Sme people hate facts and the truth. In my experience said people tend to be of BoJo/MAGA persuasion and deny science, which is wonderful when they are using the science they dany.
Difference is we tend to use it correctly. But the 'science' is full of paradoxes. Why does it get colder when it's supposed to be 'global warming'? Why do energy costs keep climbing when 'renewables' are supposed to be cheap?
It does not matter to those who seem to downvote almost everything that is said in opposition to the statement that we are green fascists.
A lot of Greens do behave in a very fascist or authoritarian way though. The 'failure' of US cities to go 100% 'renewable' demonstrates the 'severity' of the problem. But it overlooks the costs and shortcomings of 'renewables' as a viable energy strategy. You claim to have saved £750 a year, now that your investment has paid off. My electricity bill has increased by around that over the last decade, mostly due to the cost of 'renewables'.
So you've generated 2,140KWh in a year, or 5.8KWh average in a day. Congratulations! If you use that exclusively to charge a 100KWh EV, you can charge it from empty in only 17 days! Or maybe it'll be just enough power to recharge the miles you've driven. Unless of course your car isn't there during the day, in which case you'll be charging it with gas. Or perhaps you've invested in battery storage, in which case you've spent a lot of money on an EV, and your own personal filling station.
But such is politics, and Greens have lobbied long and hard to convince politicians that everyone must drive EVs, and prop up the 'renewables' industry. Energy costs inexorably rise as a result, energy poverty increase, the risk of blackouts increase and the UK follows Germany into deindustrialisation. Wales just announced a major milestone in hitting it's 'Net Zero' targets, but it's too bad for the 2,500 people losing their jobs, sacrificed to the Green Blob.
It definitely depends on where you live. Last year my 3kW solar panels generated 5.2 MWh, peaking at 0.69 MWh/month in summer; and troughing at 0.22 MWh/month in winter. We are retired, and have found that our power use; including running the reverse-cycle air conditioner at 25-26C in summer, and 23-24C in winter; has given us a buy-back period of <4 years. We paid <AU$4,000 for a relatively expensive system connected to a local micro-grid - The current federal government rebate for a similar system is AU$1,160.
..where they have spent $100's billions directly or indirectly on "renewables" over the last six decades the most reliable "renewable", solar, produces high cost electricity when demand is lowest and the spot rate is low and produces no power when demand is highest and the spot rate is high. And no matter how pretty those windmill might be in the Altamont Pass winds output is so irregular and unpredictable (and very expensive) as to be not just useless but a menace to the stability of the grid.
The one reliable "renewable" hydro is being shutdown by the CalEPA etc and environmentalists because - the usual made up reasons. They want to rip out all the dams to return the state to its Primal Purity. Ignoring the fact the native population had been geoengineering the states ecosystems quite extensively for almost 9K year before the first Europeans turned up.
So peak power is mostly natural gas power gens and very large out of state imports. The imports mostly from the coal power gens in Utah. So most nights during peak consumption hours 90% / 95% of all power in the state is generated by "non renewables". After spending $100's billions over the decades.
Just remember boys and girls the "science" the Green Lysenkoism is based on, the Energy Balance model, assumes there is no such thing as geophysics and the surface of the earth has no temperature. Zero Kelvin. Try reading the Sellers, Budkyo etc papers carefully and you will see the huge problem in their models. Simplified to meaninglessness. Even better read Budkyo's book "Climate Changes" from 1977 where its all laid out. And it quickly become very obvious that any Forcing Constant is not just a simple 289K - 256K subtraction. Far from it.
Even by the historical standards of previous Cargo Cult Sciences (and there have been quiet a few ) the Green Cult is particularly stupid. On the same level as Eugenics and Phrenology. At least in the case of California the long term damage of this massive misallocation of economic resources will be negated by the fact that sooner or later they will just start pumping again the massive state on-shore and off-shore oil and gas reserves. Bigger oil reserves than Iraq, bigger gas reserves than Qatar. But a lot of other places are going to be long term screwed. Like the UK. Unless it starts building the next gen fast breeder reactors that were all abandoned back in the 1980's
You can buy a lot of settled $cience with those billions. Hockey sticks of doom are getting more dramatic each year as $cientists bid for more grant$ to create more urgency and fear so that corrupt governments have easier time persuading the gullible public why it is good to put taxes up and spend even more billions on various vanity schemes.
Climate change cult and industry is massive now. Since money taps have been opened wide everyone wants in on the hokey cokey.
And remember when your local power utility burns down whole towns and causes the deaths of several people they will get a nice bail out from the govt. When you have the state governor signing laws that were pretty much written by the lawyers for PG&E you need to take a long hard look at the corruption going on.
Green Lysenkoism
you made me look up what that means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Lysenko's_claims
In the one case, in spite of 2 types of wheat having different and incompatible chromosomes, he believed that growing spring wheat in the fall wouid turn it into the autumn wheat species.
Even funnier is Stalin's apparent embracing of this kind of nonsense.
Out here in Cali-Fornicate-You there is a lot of effort to expose and un-do these "renewables" mandates (groups like Reform California). Meanwhile those expensive windmill blades made of brittle materials need to be periodically changed out, and old ones buried in landfills (cannot recycle), along with those worn out solar panels filled with 'toxic' metals [while CCP enjoys the profits from selling replacements].
All of this, based on the LIE that man-made CO2 (3% of all CO2 produced on earth) is ACCUMULATING (which it isn't, the equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by water temperature) and the cumulative sum of man-made CO2 is causing a GH effect (which it is not, as CO2's IR absorption band is saturated already) so that the CCP (who cornered the market on all of the stuff needed to make "renewable" power and batteries) can become the world's new economic leader and FOIST COMMUNISM UPON US ALL. I mean, why ELSE must the solution to this alleged climate change be MORE SOCIALISM and LESS FREEDOM...?
I bet SOMEBODY knows the truth about this in Davos.
Is old news that gets regurgitated by the likes of Trump along with 'Windmills give you Cancer' and 'Windmills kill all the birds'.
For an alternative view...
https://orsted.com/en/insights/the-fact-file/can-wind-turbines-be-recycled
They say that 90%-95% of a turbine can be recycled today and are working on the remainder.
They could ship them over from the USA, they are sticking them in the ground.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/T5wjU2wFpoM6ZU4w7
Turn on the satellite view.
There are places talking about baking off the resin or using special resin that can be removed with a solvent but those both sound very energy inefficient and toxic.
Is old news that gets regurgitated by the likes of Trump along with 'Windmills give you Cancer' and 'Windmills kill all the birds'
Citation needed. Some of a windmills components might, like the oils they use. Bird killing is indisputable, but usually ignored when it's protected species like raptors and bats.
One of the oft cited rebuttals to wind turbines killing birds is the number of birds that cats kill. The difference is that cats kill little birds (the type that the French like to sing about and make into pate) whereas the turbines tend to kill the large, usually rare, species of birds (that are also known for catching cats). I'm not sure the world is going to end cos my cats killed some starlings or pigeons.
There is a study that claims nuclear power kills more birds than wind turbines but the numbers are skewed based on a single event where a murmur of starlings decided to fly into the side of a reactor building somewhere on the US east coast. It did not appear that the starlings flew into the building due to any factor relating to its nuclear-ness.
I'm not sure the world is going to end cos my cats killed some starlings or pigeons.
That's one of those awkward problems. Feral cats are a problem for wildlife, like ground nesting birds and small mammals. Then again, some of those small mammals might be rats, so controlling that population is a good thing. But it was one of the least favorite tasks when I helped out on my grandfather's farm. A few farm cats can be a good thing, but finding and culling litters of kittens wasn't fun, but necessary to try and keep the balance.
It did not appear that the starlings flew into the building due to any factor relating to its nuclear-ness.
Yep, and the same with the 'streamers' at some solar arrays, or birds flying into solar PV arrays confusing them for water. Windmills have a whole range of negative effects, from direct blade strikes to barotrauma and turbulence, plus the effects on insects and other parts of the ecosystem from downwind drying due to the turbulence and vertical mixing. There also seems to be more evidence for harm to marine life from offshore windmills due some of the same effects, plus vibration. At least with nuclear, the problem is more localised due to the power density, plus the security perimeters around sites often end up becoming a bit of a nature reserve. Or other oddities, like the warm waters around Sizewell's discharge pipes leading to larger crabs.
This article is filled with words, uttered by the people who get paid, with your money --via government research grants--and who are supposed to be smart enough to provide real solutions to this very serious and very perilous problem.
Here are just two examples of a few of the many words used by these academics who are charged with analyzing, and solving, this problem--
"..."Across the 31 cities present in this study, none are expected to meet their goal of 100 percent renewable based on existing or planned infrastructure development," the team found. "Even in the four best case scenarios developed, cities appear to cap off renewable energy penetration between 35 percent and 65 percent in the next two decades..."
"..."Successful energy transitions require reframing the issue as not one that is purely technical, economic, social or political but that is interdisciplinary and requires collaboration and communication across multiple sectors," the team concluded.
"Conversations are needed between those who apply the market approach to supply and demand versus those with sociopolitical approaches," Garrett added. ®
Here's the one word whose absence here is nothing short of deafening--and unconscionable:
nuclear.
You missed one-
To further hammer home the severity of the issue, the 31 cities chosen for the study represent 84 percent of the population
84% of the population have thus far been spared the kinds of energy bill increases we've experienced in the UK and Germany as billions of our money is funnelled into the pockets of 'renewables' scumbags. This report is just an advertorial for the US arm of the Green Blob who want their slice of the $600bn+ pork dangled in Biden's oddly named 'Inflation Reduction Act'. Oddly named because as we've seen, 'investing' in 'renewables' just increases energy costs, and thus inflation. And when 'renewables' prices are indexed, profits are increased faster. The UK has the bizarre situation where punitive tobacco duty increases will raise the price of 'renewable' energy.
It's also excellent timing given the number of system notifications being issued in the US to reduce electricity usage, not charge EVs etc because large parts of it are experiencing 'Global Warming' right now. So it's cold, 'renewables' are barely delivering anything and electricity demand is high. Good luck, Texas..
Nuclear is the obvious answer, but long lead times, and of course the 'renewables' lobby adds to the decades of anti-nuclear FUD because they want to keep the gravy train rolling in their direction. And the same shite has been spouted at Davos because even though 'renewables' demonstrably don't work in consumer interests, they can be so very, very lucrative.
Here's the one word whose absence here is nothing short of deafening--and unconscionable:
nuclear.
If I assume that CO2-based climate change is real (which it is not), and I were asked to solve the problem, allow for all cars to become electric, all heating and cooking to be electric, and so on, there is only ONE solution to that problem: BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
And yet; like you pointed out, this is NEVER discussed, unlike BANS, MANDATES, RATIONING, and "this is the NEW NORMAL".
Apparently the goal *IS* to lower our standard of living and limit our ability to travel, while (of course) THE ELITE can continue to fly LUXURIOUS PRIVATE JETS to Davos, so they can figure out what to tell us PEASANTS to do, and then FORCE OUR COMPLIANCE, in the name of "ending Climate Change" (which it never will). Meanwhile those "more equal than others" remain in power, and grow wealthier, while the PEASANTS get less and less.
NEO-Feudalism is what I call it. Time for a MAGNA CHARTA, a Declaration of Independence, and maybe a FRENCH REVOLUTION, I say, if this keeps up.
uttered by the people who get paid, with your money – via government research grants...
I think that's the crux of the matter: if you pay people to find something particular, they will have a high incentive to find what you have instructed them to.
...and who are supposed to be smart enough to provide real solutions to this very serious and very perilous problem
ermmmm, no : that problem is only very perilous because the very smart people that you have paid have tortured statistics to make it look very perilous. And yes, one needs to be very smart to be able to twist reality to that point. If you look at the same numbers differently then the problem disappears. Or rather: it changes completely, and becomes "peak-oil ". May-be even "overpopulation ". The same goes for many other recent "very serious and very perilous " man-made problems
The big answer (IMHO) is to change expectations (and maybe make things a bit more efficient). Everyone is an energy addict these days and maybe they should try to kick the habit.
I'm off grid and use energy when I can and don't when I can't. It's a right PITA but I'll stick with it because it teaches me responsibility.
Examples...
My 20 year old DVD player uses 2 of my normal days of power just watching a film.
My Starlink dish chews great gobs of wattage.
Everything else I've got is very efficient, but it was all made someplace, shipped someplace else and the shipped to me. This has to stop but it won't unless people decide to cut back.
As for the fascist greenshirts.. First against the wall etc in my book.
Plenty of good thoughts ... I agree that we all need to look at everything we need to happen and then create more efficient ways to move forward.
Basically we can't just think that we'll spend a hell of a lot more energy forever to just try and be more efficient. I was suggesting solar panels but the reply's point out that just buying them from halfway across the world is not going to work, it's just moving the problems to another place.
I agree, we can't solve our worlds problems by just moving them around the world.
Ah... another fully paid up member of the 'Drill Baby Drill' cult. a.k.a. MAGA/GQP
They will be first against the wall in my book. Care to join them?
Oh, if your DVD player uses that must power, I guess that you never cook anything then? Oh wait... you cook using Fossil fuels then? How about you share the COMPLETE energy use of your home rather than being selective in with the facts that you present.
> I guess that you never cook anything then? Oh wait... you cook using Fossil fuels then?
Or perhaps uses a wood burning stove. 100% renewable if the wood is locally sourced.
He makes a great point though. Power usage is someone else's problem until you have to think seriously about it. Only then do you realise that there are many easy things that you can do to crank down your power usage, many that don't necessarily directly affect your lifestyle.
A wood burner is, perhaps, not as green as you think: Medical Xpress - ACT deaths (more than from RTAs).
> A wood burner is, perhaps, not as green as you think: Medical Xpress - ACT deaths (more than from RTAs).
Well, the number of RTAs is a known number. The number that they present in the paper is an "estimate".
In reality they have no idea.
Yes, they're not so great for the air quality. I will admit that, although I commented that is was renewable not healthy.
In the paper they mention that it generates CO2 etc, but in a renewable system that shouldn't be an issue, which they do not mention. The surrounding trees suck it back up again.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
