More conservative epic self owns

T. A. Gardner said:



There are calm days in S. Dakota. There are also days... a lot more, where the wind speed is over 35 mph and necessitates curtailing wind turbine generation due to the high wind speed.

.
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't think you have ever spent much time in South Dakota.
https://puc.sd.gov/commission/Energy/Wind/windresourcemap.pdf


I love how you try to claim the highest wind speeds turbines can function at is 35mph. If you didn't make up facts, you wouldn't have facts at all.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Somehow I don't think you have ever spent much time in South Dakota.
https://puc.sd.gov/commission/Energy/Wind/windresourcemap.pdf


I love how you try to claim the highest wind speeds turbines can function at is 35mph. If you didn't make up facts, you wouldn't have facts at all.
Click to expand...

The wind velocity has the biggest effect on the rotational speed of the rotor. After all, wind turbines are meant to rotate in response to the wind! Faster wind speeds mean faster rotation. The wind turbine begins to react, thus generating electricity, at wind speeds of around 6 miles per hour. They reach their maximum rated capacity at around 35 miles per hour. At this point, they don’t generate any extra electricity no matter how much faster the wind blows. They reach the cut-off point at 55 miles per hour, when the wind turbines shut down to prevent damage to the internal components.
https://www.semprius.com/how-fast-d...ting,no matter how much faster the wind blows.

Power production occurs only when wind speed
is greater than 7 mph and shuts down at speeds
in excess of 45 mph to protect the machinery
inside.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/wind_turbines_fact_sheet_p100il8k.pdf

It's obvious too you have no real concept of how wind turbines work.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The wind velocity has the biggest effect on the rotational speed of the rotor. After all, wind turbines are meant to rotate in response to the wind! Faster wind speeds mean faster rotation. The wind turbine begins to react, thus generating electricity, at wind speeds of around 6 miles per hour. They reach their maximum rated capacity at around 35 miles per hour. At this point, they don’t generate any extra electricity no matter how much faster the wind blows. They reach the cut-off point at 55 miles per hour, when the wind turbines shut down to prevent damage to the internal components.
https://www.semprius.com/how-fast-d...ting,no matter how much faster the wind blows.

Power production occurs only when wind speed
is greater than 7 mph and shuts down at speeds
in excess of 45 mph to protect the machinery
inside.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/wind_turbines_fact_sheet_p100il8k.pdf

It's obvious too you have no real concept of how wind turbines work.
Click to expand...

Let's see. Who claimed turbines shut down at speeds of 35MPH?
Then who is presenting 2013 numbers to try to defend his argument when the current technology has a cut off of 55MPH?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, it's obvious you are completely ignorant of how solar panels work.
Click to expand...

On Tuesday, we had scattered thunderstorms and got 1/2"' of rain. My panels produced 88% of what they had produced on Sunday and Monday on nearly cloudless days. (Monday was my highest production for the year so far.)
In the last month, my worst day of production was on a day we had low clouds all day, 1/2" of rain with drizzle and showers throughout the day. That day was 31% of my best day and still produced twice as much electricity as I used that day. Clouds and rain are hardly a problem since most days I can produce more than I use. The problem is 12" of snow in winter. But you live in an area where it never snows so your panels will never stop producing on cloudy days.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I pointed out the fallacy of using Chernobyl as an example. On the other hand, Fukushima makes an excellent argument for nuclear power being viable. The plant was overwhelmed by the tsunami. It suffered three reactors melting down. The original design was not sufficiently safe. Yet, nobody died directly as a result of that plant melting down. The evacuations, as with TMI were precautionary.

The risks with nuclear are low. Substantially lower than coal for example. Did you know that coal plants spew more radiation over time than all of that released at Fukushima by far? Coal contains radioactive isotopes, like Carbon 14, among many others. There is no control on its emission nor is there any monitoring of it.

In Arizona, the largest environmental fine ever levied against a company goes to Solana Solar in Gila Bend. They got hit with a $1.5 million fine.

Solana solar plant to pay $1.5 million in air-quality fines
https://www.azcentral.com/story/mon...olana-solar-plant-air-quality-fines/91135450/

That same plant also got hit by a microburst thunderstorm a few years back, wiping out half the array...
Click to expand...

Meanwhile.. back in the real world.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory...-leaked-nuclear-plant-recovered-xcel-99574302

More than half of a radioactive isotope that leaked from a pipe at a Minnesota nuclear plant has been recovered, while crews are making “substantial progress” in recovering contaminated groundwater, officials said.

The pipe initially leaked in November 2022 at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, allowing 400,000 gallons (1.5 million liters) of water containing tritium to spill.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is no one has ever died from buried wind turbines, yet you thought that was a good argument. Now you are arguing the lack of deaths means nuclear is safe? ROFLMAO.. Your arguments are becoming stupider by the day.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
On Tuesday, we had scattered thunderstorms and got 1/2"' of rain. My panels produced 88% of what they had produced on Sunday and Monday on nearly cloudless days. (Monday was my highest production for the year so far.)
In the last month, my worst day of production was on a day we had low clouds all day, 1/2" of rain with drizzle and showers throughout the day. That day was 31% of my best day and still produced twice as much electricity as I used that day. Clouds and rain are hardly a problem since most days I can produce more than I use. The problem is 12" of snow in winter. But you live in an area where it never snows so your panels will never stop producing on cloudy days.
Click to expand...

Anecdote isn't evidence.

Effect of Weather on Solar Panels
https://solarfunda.com/effect-of-we...lar Panels 1,Rain & Lightning ... 5 5. Hails

https://www.solaralliance.com/how-do-clouds-affect-solar-panels/

So, if you have complete or near complete overcast you could easily have a 50% to 80% reduction in output. If it's foggy, same thing. If it rains, same thing. If it snows, and the panels are covered, you get no output.

In a commercial setting where the output of the array and storage has to be relatively constant 24 hours a day, then you need to install sufficient storage to cover periods of poor weather.

For home solar, the idiocy is obvious. All you are doing is paying for 20+ years of electricity today. I've been through the numbers, both myself, and with several of the solar company sales reps that regularly show up trying to sell me this shit. Without the massive government subsidies (bribes) to buy it, the cost of the array doesn't even break even with the cost of me just buying the electricity from the utility and I don't have to deal with the system on my roof etc.

I will add, that having home solar--particularly a leased system--is a net negative for home buyers in general. You put a leased system on your house? Forget selling it. Nobody wants to inherit the mess you created by doing so.

All that aside, when you scale to commercial, solar in particular--wind somewhat less, is so unstable in output you can't rely on it for base loading. When you do, the grid becomes unstable and blackouts, momentary losses of power, and the like start regularly occurring. A smart grid won't save you, as Germany has already discovered. And, storage systems are prohibitively expensive to the point they'll never happen on the scale necessary to potentially make solar work.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In a commercial setting where the output of the array and storage has to be relatively constant 24 hours a day, then you need to install sufficient storage to cover periods of poor weather.
Click to expand...
More nonsense from you. The electricity demand is not constant for 24 hours per day. Nor is it constant 365 days per year.
Demand in the summer is substantially higher on sunny days when air conditioning is being used. Do you know what happens on sunny days?

main.svg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I will add, that having home solar--particularly a leased system--is a net negative for home buyers in general. You put a leased system on your house? Forget selling it. Nobody wants to inherit the mess you created by doing so.

.
Click to expand...
LOL. Your assumptions are rather silly. Let us know when you aren't making idiotic assumptions.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Effect of Weather on Solar Panels
https://solarfunda.com/effect-of-we...lar Panels 1,Rain & Lightning ... 5 5. Hails

https://www.solaralliance.com/how-do-clouds-affect-solar-panels/

So, if you have complete or near complete overcast you could easily have a 50% to 80% reduction in output. If it's foggy, same thing. If it rains, same thing. If it snows, and the panels are covered, you get no output.
Click to expand...

It's like you don't even listen to your own arguments as you turn around and give us evidence that refutes your earlier bullshit
And you think you are the only one that has figured out weather affects solar and wind? The funny thing is electric companies can look at weather forecasts like the one you gave us and estimate what it will do to solar and wind production and plan accordingly.

It looks like weather also affected the Fukishima nuclear plant. Weather affected gas power plants in Texas. This idea that nuclear and gas plants have no issues is clearly more of your nonsense.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It's like you don't even listen to your own arguments as you turn around and give us evidence that refutes your earlier bullshit
And you think you are the only one that has figured out weather affects solar and wind? The funny thing is electric companies can look at weather forecasts like the one you gave us and estimate what it will do to solar and wind production and plan accordingly.

It looks like weather also affected the Fukishima nuclear plant. Weather affected gas power plants in Texas. This idea that nuclear and gas plants have no issues is clearly more of your nonsense.
Click to expand...

And with that, T.A. fades away like a nuke wonk specter.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And with that, T.A. fades away like a nuke wonk specter.
Click to expand...

Yea, a poser... err, poster... puts up some unsourced nonsense and you buy it because it jibes with your ill-informed opinion based on bullshit.
Click to expand...

Wait, hold it. I hear a disembodied voice! It's saying nothing, but seems to be full of hate and lies. The chronology of the post can do that to MAGA spooks.

:laugh:
 
ptif219 said:
So you will vote for more open borders so the invasion can continue and for inflation and the Recession and for destroying industries to usher in a green agenda that will fail? That is logical? HAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

Same fucking borders that we have had for decades. Trump built 23 miles of new wall. They are still there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top