PragerU: What’s Wrong with Wind and Solar?

Some facts about “green” energy to have at your fingertips.

This entry was posted in Economy, Environment, Government, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to PragerU: What’s Wrong with Wind and Solar?

  1. czarowniczy says:

    Instead of unobtainium can’t we use adamantium or vibranium?

    Anyway, I was just looking at solar and Tesla’s Powerwall this AM! They guarantee their batteries for 10 years normal use but even then in order to power a house off the grid you need a roof full of solar cells and a wall full of batteries. For efficient year-round use you need to be able to shift the solar panels to track the sun as it moves from a more southerly to a more northern track thru the seasons. Even then the best panels I can find give just under 22% efficiency and that’s under ideal condition with clean panel surfaces.

    Something the speaker just touched on was the huge amounts of waste involved directly in the manufacture of the batteries and solar cells, much of the waste is toxic. Even if you ‘completely’ recycle the batteries and solar cells there’s a large amount of effluent involved in that, but there are armchair experts and big money managers involved who’ll continue to push solar and wind while ignoring ways to make hydrocarbon-based fuels cleaner and more efficient.

    Note that Russia and the Mideast countries will be extracting and disbursing huge amounts of fossil fuels for the far future. Russia, Iran and Qatar control monstrous amounts of NG and have zero plans for not mining it just as damn near every other country in the world have no plans to stop buying it and go ‘green’. We’d do better coming up with realistic plans to remove CO2 and other greenhouse gasses from the environment while finding more cleaner and efficient was to use available fossil fuels or even hydrogen.

    Liked by 2 people

    • texan59 says:

      I don’t think any of these “renewables” can hold a candle to nukular. While not very astute in physics, or science in general for that matter, I still think this is a much better option than frying birds or putting solar panels over a 5,000-acre field. With the “right people” behind it, maybe there’s a chance?

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2020/08/31/bill-gates-nuclear-firm-says-new-reactor-can-backstop-grid-with-molten-salt-storage/#6952d0d85e65

      Liked by 2 people

      • czarowniczy says:

        The various non-nuke energy forces will mount waves of protesters carrying Thee Mile Island and Chernobyl posters in a heartbeat. There are ways to make them safe and the nuke byproducts safer but it would gore other energy sources’ bulls so that’s a no-go.

        Liked by 1 person

    • stella says:

      I can see using solar or wind for off-grid personal homes. Not for all of us.

      Liked by 2 people

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Exactly. I have said that for the last 30 years.

        Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        Even off-grid you end up with limited options for appliances. If you want to use your stuff other than at peak sun hours you have to have batteries and you’re right back to trying to charge batteries while trying to run appliances.

        My old USDA facility had an UPS and it had a huge room full of lead acid batteries each the size of a fridge.

        Just before Katrina they had to swap them out as they’d reached their max life and we’d never really used them. One of they guys swapping them out said they’d be sent to Mexico for recycling as between OSHA and the EPA they’d never get them economically done here. While they were replacing them they also swapped out the whole-facility emergency generator (it was on the ground, go figure) but left the diesel fuel tank on the ground – go figure. Never did used the setup for Katrina, even though it didn’t flood, there was too much individual money to be made as the Feds moved The Chosen Ones from the area(families too). gave them room and board and other perks, leaving the prols to bob in the water. They’d looked at solar too only to find it was useless, even at the agency’s remote relocation site.

        Liked by 1 person

        • stella says:

          I follow a couple of channels on YouTube where they use solar to power their homes, including air conditioning. One channel just added another bank of solar panels and commented that the new ones are more efficient, producing more power per panel. I believe battery technology has improved too. One of the families is in Texas, one is in West Virginia, one in North Carolina and another in Arizona.

          Liked by 2 people

          • czarowniczy says:

            Yeah, I’m looking at the LG panels, they’re just short of 22%. There are more effective 4-junction cells but they’re on satellites (especially government ones) that we pay for so their added expense is not an issue to the Feds.

            Tesla’s batteries are really efficient, guaranteed for 10 years and are recyclable. That’s what draws me, I like that 10 year guarantee and as I hate lead-acid it’s looking more and more attractive as a daily supplemental and hurricane primary power source backed by the propane-powered generator. Nothing’s simple any more.

            Liked by 2 people

    • jeans2nd says:

      Dad built the first solar energy home, in Arizona, circa 1980s if memory serves. Dad was a heat-transfer engineer, but specialized in nuclear.

      Anyways, Dad couldn’t build the solar house in Ohio, especially not the North Coast. Year-round Ohio has 89% cloud cover.

      Dad told them solar was not practical, nuclear was as safe as the nuclear operators you hired to run the nuclear plants, and not to waste any more time on a dead-end project.

      Dad was given his 25 year gold watch and retired.
      B&W Research, now McDernott, is long gone, property razed. But the research still stands the test of time.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. auscitizenmom says:

    This is an interesting perspective I have never seen before. On my way home just now, I heard Rush saying that the problem in California is that they have gone green. They have rolling blackouts, etc. and it is all their own fault. He pointed out that Florida uses more power (I am not sure I understood him right) because of the heat and humidity and yet it is cheaper and not blackouts.

    Liked by 2 people

    • texan59 says:

      CA is such a NIMBY state. They don’t want to put up dams or electric grids for their own people. According to this document, 25% of their power comes from out of state. They also will not allow for proper forest management, that, if done correctly, would/could eliminate a lot of these big burns, which then cause their power sources to shut down, and everything cascades. Bottom line is that the state is horribly run and does not take advantage of their abundance of natural resources because it’s better to be politically correct than to ably supply your residents with power and water. :/

      Liked by 5 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.