Fighting 'Solar Farm' Installation

[KilroyJC]

Where do they put all the junk material from the out of date coal plants? Where will they put the worn out turbines in the NG power plant I've referenced before? What about when they have to demolish the entire facility in 30 years when it's out of date? What about all the shrimp fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico that can't fish for shrimp anymore? Why does China control the market on Cobalt (one of the most important elements to rechargeable battery efficiency)? Because we hung on to the past and they jumped on the future and beat us to it.

The “junk material” from coal plants is mostly steel, copper, aluminum, and insulated wire, with other little bits thrown in.

And China is building and firing up new coal-fired generating stations every week. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160...w-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

”jumping on the future” by ensuring they have reliable energy, unlike us - and they are supplying us with the new “green” unreliable energy at our expense.

 

[kenmbz]

The “junk material” from coal plants is mostly steel, copper, aluminum, and insulated wire, with other little bits thrown in.

And China is building and firing up new coal-fired generating stations every week. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160...w-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

”jumping on the future” by ensuring they have reliable energy, unlike us - and they are supplying us with the new “green” unreliable energy at our expense.

China is spending a fortune on solar since they can't drag coal out fast enough to supply their energy needs.
They are spending more on renewable research than anyone else and have the MOST solar generation in the world.
India is number 3 or 4 in the world for solar.

 

[KilroyJC]

China is spending a fortune on solar since they can't drag coal out fast enough to supply their energy needs.
They are spending more on renewable research than anyone else and have the MOST solar generation in the world.
India is number 3 or 4 in the world for solar.

They are doing the solar in addition to adding coal plants at an astonishing rate, NOT scrapping the coal plants and relying on solar. Because hydrocarbon generating stations work at night, in the rain, in the snow, and have a much smaller footprint per megawatt.

believe me when I say I would much rather see a bunch of small, distributed micro-nuclear plants scattered in a decentralized manner, but right now America is trying to rely on an unstable unreliable energy source, which is arguably less efficient and more polluting than the hydrocarbons it is meant to replace.

 

[kenmbz]

We can bury the solar waste with the nuclear waste and the coal slag.

 

[lman]

We can bury the solar waste with the nuclear waste and the coal slag.

NIMB40.

 

[walhondingMF]

carbon is easential for photosynthesis: light, water, carbon dioxide.

carbon dioxide generators are installed in greenhouses to increase yield.

historical physical samples and fossil record/core samples indicate higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels than we have today.

there are not enough rare-earth minerals to convert everything that is currently hydrocarbon-powered to electric, and certainly not enough to replace all the batteries as they reach the end of their service life.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here?

Yes, photosynthetic organisms use carbon (and some modern satellite imagery is showing an increase in plant-based biomass). That doesn't mean it's normal.

Yes, professionals in the field all know that there have been many times in the past when CO2 and methane levels were much higher than they are today. That doesn't mean the amount there is right now is the amount there should be.

No, there are not enough rare earth metals to convert EVERYTHING over, so that's why it's not ALL being converted over. Alternatives have just been added to the mix. NG is growing just as fast, if not faster, than any alternative energy option.

Battery technology has and is continuing to improve as demand for battery powered options increases. Who would have ever thought you could buy a battery powered chainsaw, and that people actually want to buy them. So much so, that all the major manufactures have multiple options and battery power tool lines.

 

[walhondingMF]

The “junk material” from coal plants is mostly steel, copper, aluminum, and insulated wire, with other little bits thrown in.

And China is building and firing up new coal-fired generating stations every week. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160...w-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

”jumping on the future” by ensuring they have reliable energy, unlike us - and they are supplying us with the new “green” unreliable energy at our expense.

If you think China is just using coal, your being oblivious to the situation. China is using coal at a dangerous level... but they also use NG they buy from Russia along with solar panels and wind turbines they are building. This gives them 1. A variety of industrial pathways and 2. A variety of energy options.
And if we wanted to slow China down, we would not allow our fossil fuel companies to sell our coal and oil resources to China. But hey, we wouldn't want the government interfering with capitalism.

 

[walhondingMF]

believe me when I say I would much rather see a bunch of small, distributed micro-nuclear plants scattered in a decentralized manner, but right now America is trying to rely on an unstable unreliable energy source, which is arguably less efficient and more polluting than the hydrocarbons it is meant to replace.

I am with you on the micro-nuclear. Find the company willing to take the leap and get this going. Solar didn't start out with government funding. It grew on its own, without subsidies while its competition (coal) was raking in tax money. Micro-nuclear could follow a similar path.

Replace coal, yes. But the largest replacement to coal is NG. I live in former coal country, now NG country.

Replace oil and NG, no. We use oil for far too many products other than just gas and deisel (plastic, fertilizers, artificial caffeine, etc). and internal combustion engines are not going anywhere soon.

Work along with oil and NG, yes. Market dictates that there are a lot of people that want EVs. Is it going to be everyone, no, but the market has been cornered exclusively by ICEs. The NG power plant here is an up scaled version of the facilities they use in the west along with solar and wind. This makes both energy options work better in those areas. Wind and solar are not a good option here, but the abundance of NG makes it alone a good option here. The plant was built with help from subsidies and a tax abatement because the energy method is classified as "green." I have no problem with that.

 

[KilroyJC]

We can bury the solar waste with the nuclear waste and the coal slag.

Coal slag can be recycled. Paving aggregate, blasting media, etc. there may even be some materials that can be recovered and made into solar panels…

I won’t understand why solar panels are not recyclable (other than the fact that it would require more energy to recycle those materials than was used in their initial manufacture, which is certainly more energy than they will produce in their service life… )


if we went with breeder reactors, nuclear waste would not be an issue, as the waste would,be reprocessed into fuel on-site. IIRC there was a reactor planned -but cancelled- that was fully self-contained and transported out zero waste as it was all reprocessed within the facility. But the anti-nukey hysteria prevented further progress.

I never understood why Us Naval design reactors were never mass-produced (other than the NIMBY and hysteria) as they are well proven, and Navy veterans would be readily employable to run them.

 

[KilroyJC]

I am with you on the micro-nuclear. Find the company willing to take the leap and get this going. Solar didn't start out with government funding. It grew on its own, without subsidies while its competition (coal) was raking in tax money. Micro-nuclear could follow a similar path.

Replace coal, yes. But the largest replacement to coal is NG. I live in former coal country, now NG country.

Replace oil and NG, no. We use oil for far too many products other than just gas and deisel (plastic, fertilizers, artificial caffeine, etc). and internal combustion engines are not going anywhere soon.

Work along with oil and NG, yes. Market dictates that there are a lot of people that want EVs. Is it going to be everyone, no, but the market has been cornered exclusively by ICEs. The NG power plant here is an up scaled version of the facilities they use in the west along with solar and wind. This makes both energy options work better in those areas. Wind and solar are not a good option here, but the abundance of NG makes it alone a good option here. The plant was built with help from subsidies and a tax abatement because the energy method is classified as "green." I have no problem with that.

One of the potential states we might have moved to was West Virginia, mainly because I wanted my own NG well and compressor at home. other factors led to choosing another locale.

 

[KilroyJC]

. But hey, we wouldn't want the government interfering with capitalism.

like shutting down pipelines?

How many of those Keystone XL workers actually got “high-paying solar energy jobs”?

permits shut down, leases not renewed — AND selling to the “foreign policy expert elder statesman’s” good friend China?

 

[kenmbz]

Fact Check-Though Keystone XL Pipeline had secured most of its funding, it was only 8% constructed

In the weeks following U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to scrap the Keystone XL oil pipeline, posts on social media have claimed that the project “was in Phase 4 & just about completed” and that it had been “paid for” by the time Biden “pulled the plug.” While it is...

www.reuters.com

Some Keystone facts (not pro/con)

And the map as it was

 

[walhondingMF]

like shutting down pipelines?

How many of those Keystone XL workers actually got “high-paying solar energy jobs”?

permits shut down, leases not renewed — AND selling to the “foreign policy expert elder statesman’s” good friend China?

... and private property that DID NOT want the pipeline run through.

Your neighbor putting solar panels up? That's one topic. But having them forced on YOUR property for the sake of profit is another one.

Maybe those pipeline workers didn't get jobs there, but they did somewhere else in the country. Many of them are migratory. Someone got high paying jobs in solar though. Regardless of where the panels are from, someone has to put up all these solar fields everyone is talking about.

My brother-in-law that works for TC energy will tell you that the XL not being built was not going to impact the oil making it to the Gulf, and it didn't.

 

[bvanek]

My brother-in-law that works for TC energy will tell you that the XL not being built was not going to impact the oil making it to the Gulf, and it didn't.

But running oil in a pipeline is better than transporting by trucks and rail both economically and emission wise. Whether you argue for or against the pipelines, they reduce costs and less polluting which makes a case that they are a better way to go.

 

[KilroyJC]

... and private property that DID NOT want the pipeline run through.

Your neighbor putting solar panels up? That's one topic. But having them forced on YOUR property for the sake of profit is another one.

Maybe those pipeline workers didn't get jobs there, but they did somewhere else in the country. Many of them are migratory. Someone got high paying jobs in solar though. Regardless of where the panels are from, someone has to put up all these solar fields everyone is talking about.

My brother-in-law that works for TC energy will tell you that the XL not being built was not going to impact the oil making it to the Gulf, and it didn't.

So how is the oil making it to the gulf, and how much more could have been transported as opposed to current rates?

And really, since the disastrous Kelo decision - how much property rights do we have anyway?

I want the airlines to pay a toll every time they go over my house. But I can’t.

 

[kenmbz]

According to the map I show earlier, the rest of the Keystone Pipeline carries the oil.
XL was never going to a port anyway.

So probably to truck/rail.

 

[KilroyJC]

According to the map I show earlier, the rest of the Keystone Pipeline carries the oil.
XL was never going to a port anyway.

So probably to truck/rail.

IIRC it was going to refineries for domestic consumption.

 

[walhondingMF]

But running oil in a pipeline is better than transporting by trucks and rail both economically and emission wise. Whether you argue for or against the pipelines, they reduce costs and less polluting which makes a case that they are a better way to go.

All the oil was and is still running through pre-existing pipelines. The XL was meant to be a money saving shortcut.

 

[KilroyJC]

All the oil was and is still running through pre-existing pipelines. The XL was meant to be a money saving shortcut.

I like saving money.

I like alternate routes, too, in case there is a problem one way, another way would be viable.

 

[walhondingMF]

It was not domestic oil. It is Canadian oil from tar sands pits. IIRC it was already sold to China. The only American involvement was to transport and refine the oil. Meanwhile, forcing a pipeline through the lands of people that didn't want it.