• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wind generation output tops 15,000 MW in ERCOT region

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
AUSTIN, TX, Nov. 28, 2016 – Wind generation set a new milestone on Sunday afternoon, providing more than 15,000 megawatts (MW) of the electricity used in the ERCOT region for the first time ever.

Specifically, the ERCOT system used 15,033 MW of electricity from wind at 12:35 p.m. on Sunday, Nov. 27, representing about 45 percent of total demand for electric power at the time. Of the total, more than 8,800 MW was produced from wind generation facilities in West and North Texas, while nearly 3,800 MW came from the South region, mostly the Gulf Coast area, and about 2,300 MW came from the Panhandle region.
Click to expand...

Wind power on Sunday accounted for 45 percent of all power generation in Texas.

Coal? Coal? We don't need your stinking coal.

Wind generation output tops 15,000 MW in ERCOT region
 
The windmills are everywhere now and because they are very expensive it will be laughable when new technology rules they all are obsolete.
 
danarhea said:
Wind power on Sunday accounted for 45 percent of all power generation in Texas.

Coal? Coal? We don't need your stinking coal.

Wind generation output tops 15,000 MW in ERCOT region
Click to expand...

Yeah, birds would disagree.

Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds? | Audubon

Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought | Save the Eagles International

pic12.jpg
 
I have a neighbor that owns a wind generation company. The problems they see are power storage, power generation during peak hours vs. wind during peak hours. I think wind power is good but not reliable as a full time source.

Oh, as a side note wind generators contribute to man made global warming, if one believes in such a thing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-found-to-affect-local-climate/
 
NonoBadDog said:
I have a neighbor that owns a wind generation company. The problems they see are power storage, power generation during peak hours vs. wind during peak hours. I think wind power is good but not reliable as a full time source.

Oh, as a side note wind generators contribute to man made global warming, if one believes in such a thing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-found-to-affect-local-climate/
Click to expand...

It's a great supplemental source of energy. Its impacts on the local climate are far more transient than the accumulation of specific atmospheric molecules.
 
Absentglare said:
Do you honestly believe that burning huge quantities of coal is safe for wildlife?
Click to expand...

No energy source is a panacea. That's the point. Do you have evidence that coal energy is directly responsible for killing millions of birds annually? Let's see it.

Solar isn't completely safe either, nor is it particularly efficient.
 
Absentglare said:
It's a great supplemental source of energy. Its impacts on the local climate are far more transient than the accumulation of specific atmospheric molecules.
Click to expand...

I am worried about the eagles. If it will save but one eagle. Eagles are special an ****. It changes the impact of climate on agricultural land also. I like food. I realize that the left doesn't give a damn about agriculture but they don't realize food comes from agriculture. It's like food comes form a unicorn's ass or something.
 
countryboy said:
No energy source is a panacea. That's the point. Do you have evidence that coal energy is directly responsible for killing millions of birds annually? Let's see it.

Solar isn't completely safe either, nor is it particularly efficient.
Click to expand...

No, i wasn't trying to make that point. I'm not trying to formulate an appeal to emotion fallacy by posting pictures of a dead national symbol next to a power plant.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I am worried about the eagles. If it will save but one eagle. Eagles are special an ****. It changes the impact of climate on agricultural land also. I like food. I realize that the left doesn't give a damn about agriculture but they don't realize food comes from agriculture. It's like food comes form a unicorn's ass or something.
Click to expand...

I could make the same agricultural argument about coal.

They were looking at ways to try to spare animals, with low velocity turbines, for example, but the highest efficiency seems to be with the most bird-threatening turbine shapes and velocities. It's just one of the many ways that the business/personal interests may conflict with the bigger picture of society/environment.
 
Absentglare said:
No, i wasn't trying to make that point. I'm not trying to formulate an appeal to emotion fallacy by posting pictures of a dead national symbol next to a power plant.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the article, it's no fallacy, and frankly if one is not moved emotionally by a beautiful bird of prey lying on the ground mortally wounded and agonizing, then they have no soul. BTW, according to the article, that bird is a red kite, and the image was taken in Spain, so, no "national symbol" as you assumed.

I guess the only birds libs sympathize with are chickens packed like sardines in coops. :roll:
 
countryboy said:
You obviously didn't read the article, it's no fallacy, and frankly if one is not moved emotionally by a beautiful bird of prey lying on the ground mortally wounded and agonizing, then they have no soul. BTW, according to the article, that bird is a red kite, and the image was taken in Spain, so, no "national symbol" as you assumed.

I guess the only birds libs sympathize with are chickens packed like sardines in coops. :roll:
Click to expand...

Ah, in that respect, you are right, i stand corrected.

You cited two articles. One had two pictures of bald eagles in it.

The other had this at the top:

33a50217220239284fdf0351332cad43.png


As well as a couple particularly gruesome pictures.

I'm not saying that it's not moving, i'm saying that it's an appeal to emotion. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment?
 
danarhea said:
Wind power on Sunday accounted for 45 percent of all power generation in Texas.

Coal? Coal? We don't need your stinking coal.

Wind generation output tops 15,000 MW in ERCOT region
Click to expand...
Great find, Dan. I love articles like this. Hopefully this is the orthodox method in the future.

And about that coal. I remember Donald Trump telling the coal miners that they're going to start digging coal and they got all excited. Those folks can dig for coal all they want but the hard thing is selling it. Natural gas is cheaper than coal right now. And wind? It's even cheaper! Go wind! :thumbs:
 
countryboy said:
No energy source is a panacea. That's the point. Do you have evidence that coal energy is directly responsible for killing millions of birds annually? Let's see it.

Solar isn't completely safe either, nor is it particularly efficient.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to get into a conversation about just coal? Let's talk about oil spills, nuclear disasters, etc. I don't think that looking for the flaws in some energy forms supported by the right should only be restricted to coal.

I think coal is way too spread out to really be proven to affect specific wildlife but it is undisputable that the production of coal literally ruins the environments in which these mines are built. Later on in the production process, you have the creation of plants to process these places which also ruin the surrounding environment. It's like plants are in the middle of the woods. They're large infrastructures designed to be borderline poisonous to the wildlife in the area.

Then, you have oil spills. Which though admittedly rare, can effectively destroy a sizeable portion of the sea. Again, I don't think that looking for disasters is really how you want to handle this. I think you should instead make the argument that these other cleaner methods have to demonstrably keep up with the current growing demand for energy.

We also cannot bow down to places like India who essentially benefit from the world more than the world benefits from them. They want to develop, that is understandable. Then let's meet them halfway and divert aid to these countries towards clean energy. Lowering their reliance on oil is really the only way we can sustain our own demand for it.
 
Hatuey said:
Do you really want to get into a conversation about just coal? Let's talk about oil spills, nuclear disasters, etc. I don't think that looking for the flaws in some energy forms supported by the right should only be restricted to coal.

I think coal is way too spread out to really be proven to affect specific wildlife but it is undisputable that the production of coal literally ruins the environments in which these mines are built. Later on in the production process, you have the creation of plants to process these places which also ruin the surrounding environment. It's like plants are in the middle of the woods. They're large infrastructures designed to be borderline poisonous to the wildlife in the area.

Then, you have oil spills. Which though admittedly rare, can effectively destroy a sizeable portion of the sea. Again, I don't think that looking for disasters is really how you want to handle this. I think you should instead make the argument that these other cleaner methods have to demonstrably keep up with the current growing demand for energy.

We also cannot bow down to places like India who essentially benefit from the world more than the world benefits from them. They want to develop, that is understandable. Then let's meet them halfway and divert aid to these countries towards clean energy. Lowering their reliance on oil is really the only way we can sustain our own demand for it.
Click to expand...

Okay, so sliced and diced birds mean nothing to you as long as unsustainable greenie weenie bull**** is pushed. Got it.
 
Wind generation output tops 15,000 MW in ERCOT region
Click to expand...

still makes me happy that my hometown has a wind farm.
 
countryboy said:
Okay, so sliced and diced birds mean nothing to you as long as unsustainable greenie weenie bull**** is pushed. Got it.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that non-renewable sources simply cannot be thought of in a long term sense because of the immediate effects they have on the environments around them. A few dead birds is bad, but it's not as bad as losing entire ecosystems as a result of mines, leaky power plants and melting nuclear plants.

I also proposed that we rethink the discussion in terms of how we can reduce the incoming global struggle for energy sources. We should promote green energy in developing countries and adapt the existing technology to their needs. There are over a billion people on this planet who are, as a result of development, becoming energy hungry. We must start diversifying our portfolio of energy sources otherwise we are more than likely to be caught in power struggles with the rest of the world.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm suggesting that non-renewable sources simply cannot be thought of in a long term sense because of the immediate effects they have on the environments around them. A few dead birds.....
Click to expand...

Let me stop you right there. It's not "a few dead birds", it's millions of birds and bats. We're talking potential extinction levels here.
 
Absentglare said:
I could make the same agricultural argument about coal.

They were looking at ways to try to spare animals, with low velocity turbines, for example, but the highest efficiency seems to be with the most bird-threatening turbine shapes and velocities. It's just one of the many ways that the business/personal interests may conflict with the bigger picture of society/environment.
Click to expand...

You don't know jack about Agriculture and Coal. Illinois has high concentrations of both, well at least it did before that prick Obama did his level best to kill coal. Coal has almost no impact aboveground. Subsidence is a bigger issue than interfering with agriculture to be honest.
 
countryboy said:
Let me stop you right there. It's not "a few dead birds", it's millions of birds and bats. We're talking potential extinction levels here.
Click to expand...

You know, I do love these arguments. I agree. Wind turbines kill about 300,000 birds a year. In a scope of a decade, that's 3,000,000 birds. In comparison house cats kill 3,000,000 birds a year. I draw the conclusion that birds will probably not become extinct as a result of wind turbines anymore than they will due to cats. However, it is true that damages to populations will grown.

In contrast, I also believe that non-renewable sources have the effect of destroying their immediate surroundings, and any hope of restoring the area as a result of their extraction and processing. This really is undisputable.

Again, I don't believe that a disaster tit for that is the way you want to go.
 
The main problem with wind energy in the current technology is view-shed pollution.

The second is that is is not reliable, which is a huge mother****ing problem when it comes to electricity generation.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You don't know jack about Agriculture and Coal. Illinois has high concentrations of both, well at least it did before that prick Obama did his level best to kill coal. Coal has almost no impact aboveground. Subsidence is a bigger issue than interfering with agriculture to be honest.
Click to expand...

?!?!?!?!

Burning coal has "almost no impact aboveground" ...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom