• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

New Commercial Wind Farms & Solar Farms to be Terminated

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
Indiana is an odd state. We do NOT give consumers any sort of state credit for installing solar panels or small turbines to generate energy, but we have vast, commercial "wind farms" that are subsidized by federal (and I presume state?) tax dollars. Ditto for "Solar Farms" with acres upon acres of solar panels.

Now I am not complaining about not getting a tax subsidy for personal solar or wind projects on people's homes. In fact I think it is morally wrong to tax my neighbors to subsidize my projects and visa-versa.

But when we objectively look at WIND power and SOLAR power we have to admit it is the most expensive energy we can produce and it is far less "green" than many will claim. That all may be coming to an end. At least for the next 4 years.

 
I think all subsites are wrong with one exception national security.
I know that broad for example but we should be able to make steel, build ships, support the armed forces with merchant marines with US products equipment.
 
We don't make the windmills here. They cost upwards of $6 million each. And last for, at best, 20 years.
We don't make solar panels here and they last, at best, 20-24 years.
China loves our liberal gubmit that mandates both of these technologies to replace hydro and fossil fuel generation of electric power.
China has the largest Hydro electric dam in the world, and is building another one. These structures are so big they have changed the rotation of our planet. They need them, along with dirty coal fired plants, to manufacture windmills and solar panels for export to the USA.
They are our enemy. Economically and militarily.

Our Gubmit mandates we move to this method of generating electric power.



What part of this concept makes any sense?????
 
We don't make the windmills here. They cost upwards of $6 million each. And last for, at best, 20 years.
We don't make solar panels here and they last, at best, 20-24 years.
China loves our liberal gubmit that mandates both of these technologies ...
They are our enemy. Economically, morally and militarily.
Fixed that for you.

And it does not make any sense.

I drive thru a huge windmill farm 2 to 3 days a week when coach at Purdue. Most people don't realize how often those blades need to be replaced either. The main unit may have a lifespan of 20-ish years but the blades do not. If you see a windmill with new blade the tips of the blades appear to be pushing forward, away from the tower. A few years later the tips are pushed back and are closer to the tower. The blades have a limited lifespan and are only at peak efficiency for a portion of that lifespan.

Oddball am I, but it seems like the safest, greenest and most reliable energy is nuclear. But for the wack-job enviro-lawsuits and some absolutely insane regulations, it would also be the cheapest. It is, unlike wind and solar, scaleable too.

Don't get me wrong, I do favor an "all of the above" sort of grid. Solar panels on rooftops makes sense for those who can afford it. Ditto small-ish wind turbines that put out 1.5 to roughly 3kw of power if in an area suitable for those.

But it strikes me that lots of modular reactors, which have interchangeable parts, makes more economic sense than wind/solar. And given the realities of getting a reactor started, the bridge is going to be clean burning NATURAL GAS. Anyone who thinks we can power our needs, economically, without N.G. is living in a fantasyland. It is the current and best source of power that is available to us.
 
Fixed that for you.

And it does not make any sense.

I drive thru a huge windmill farm 2 to 3 days a week when coach at Purdue. Most people don't realize how often those blades need to be replaced either. The main unit may have a lifespan of 20-ish years but the blades do not. If you see a windmill with new blade the tips of the blades appear to be pushing forward, away from the tower. A few years later the tips are pushed back and are closer to the tower. The blades have a limited lifespan and are only at peak efficiency for a portion of that lifespan.

Oddball am I, but it seems like the safest, greenest and most reliable energy is nuclear. But for the wack-job enviro-lawsuits and some absolutely insane regulations, it would also be the cheapest. It is, unlike wind and solar, scaleable too.

Don't get me wrong, I do favor an "all of the above" sort of grid. Solar panels on rooftops makes sense for those who can afford it. Ditto small-ish wind turbines that put out 1.5 to roughly 3kw of power if in an area suitable for those.

But it strikes me that lots of modular reactors, which have interchangeable parts, makes more economic sense than wind/solar. And given the realities of getting a reactor started, the bridge is going to be clean burning NATURAL GAS. Anyone who thinks we can power our needs, economically, without N.G. is living in a fantasyland. It is the current and best source of power that is available to us.
WHAT HE SAID!
 
MOSS LANDING CAL. STORED ENEGRY FIRE (BATTERY) HOW'S THAT GREEN ENEGRY DOING FOR FOR YOU?????
A LOOK FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POND

Days before President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office and took actions to stall the transition to clean energy, a disaster unfolded on the other side of the country that may have an outsize effect on the pace of the transition.

A fire broke out last Thursday at the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California, one of the largest battery energy storage systems in the world. The fire raged through the weekend, forcing local officials to evacuate nearby homes and close roads.

Battery storage is an essential part of the transition away from fossil fuels. It works in tandem with solar and wind power to provide electricity during periods when the renewable resources aren’t available. But lithium-ion batteries, the most common technology used in storage systems, are flammable. And if they catch fire, it can be difficult to extinguish.

Last week’s fire is the latest and largest of several at the Moss Landing site in recent years, and I expect that it will become the main example opponents of carbon-free electricity use to try to stop battery development in other places.

“This is really a Three Mile Island event for this industry,” said Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church at a Jan. 17 news conference.

He was referring to the 1979 incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. The partial meltdown led to panic across the region and helped to cement the idea that nuclear power was unsafe.

I’ve been to enough local public hearings on energy projects to know that I’m going to spend years hearing Church’s quote be used to oppose any battery project, even ones that have little in common with Moss Landing in terms of design and technology.

My initial reaction is that Church is justified in being upset that the operator of the plant, Vistra Corp., has been unable to prevent this string of safety incidents. I don’t want to minimize the disruption, damage and constituent fears to which he is responding. (Vistra, based in Texas, didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

The battery storage facility is on the site of a closed power plant, and it’s right next to a natural gas power plant that is still operating. The storage facility was built in three phases, the first two going online in 2021 with a combined capacity of 400 megawatts, and the third phase going online in 2023 with capacity of 350 megawatts. The batteries are built to run for up to four hours before needing to be recharged.

MontereyCAMossLandingFire700px.png

The problems at Moss Landing could be used to boost safety fears about battery storage in general, with grave consequences for the energy transition. Or officials could look specifically at what aspects of Moss Landing’s design contributed to its fire risk, and use those lessons to make existing and future projects safer.

To get a better sense of what can be done, I spoke with Matthew Paiss, a technical advisor for battery materials and systems at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. He advises on safety issues, but it’s a second career for him: He spent most of his adult life as a firefighter.

“I have a really strange background,” he said.

He knows the Moss Landing plant well, having seen it inside and out as part of his work at the lab. He lives in Santa Cruz, close enough to Moss Landing that he could see flickering light in the sky last week as the fire burned.

He began his description of the fire risk by explaining “thermal runaway,” a self-heating process in which a lithium-ion battery is damaged or misused and triggers a chemical reaction that releases highly flammable gases and lots of heat.

If there is a spark or other flame, the gases can serve as fuel for a fire that can spread from one module to entire racks of batteries. Sprinkler systems may be able to help in an early stage, but many of these fires are too powerful and burn too hot to be suppressed.

So how do system designers reduce the chances of thermal runaway?

A big factor is the system design. Many, if not most, battery storage systems being built today look like rows of shipping containers that sit outdoors. These “cabinets,” as they’re called, can help to reduce the chances of large fires because flames would need to burn through the container’s shell and then leap across an outdoor space and burn through the shell of a nearby container. That’s not easy and it rarely happens.

In contrast, the systems that have now caught fire multiple times at Moss Landing are indoor installations, set up inside the shell of a building left over from the natural gas plant that used to be on the site. The project is an unusually large example of repurposing an old building for energy storage.

Matthew Paiss is a technical advisor for battery materials and systems at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Credit: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
“There are some real challenges in protecting batteries in indoor installations,” Paiss said.

He said that writers of safety codes have been reluctant to prohibit indoor installations, but he thinks there is a growing body of evidence that designers of these systems need to take steps to offset the potential for higher fire risk. One strategy would be to have greater separation within the buildings, so there are hard barriers to reduce the spread of fire. This would also allow a portion of the facility to continue to operate even while another part is damaged and offline.

Another significant fire risk factor is battery chemistry. The part of Moss Landing that caught fire housed lithium-ion batteries that used a nickel manganese cobalt, or NMC, technology. This kind of battery has high energy density, which is good in terms of the amount of energy that can be stored, but has downsides in terms of heat tolerance.

“The higher the energy density, the spicier” it can be when damaged, Paiss said.
NMC batteries have lost market share in favor of lithium iron phosphate, or LFP, a chemistry that has lower energy density. Among the other tradeoffs is that LFP can produce more flammable gas than NMC, although the severity of the fires is often less.

“One consistent thing you can say is when you go down in energy density, you increase in safety,” Paiss said. “It’s safer because it can tolerate higher temperatures, and that’s a good thing. And when it does fail, it doesn’t necessarily produce a lot of arcing and sparking in flames right away.”

I asked what he wanted to still learn about this most recent fire.

“I like making decisions based on data, and I encourage others to do the same,” he said. “I think one of the most important datasets that we need to see is whether or not there was any toxic emissions that were actually measurable, either airborne as far down the smoke column as could be measured or where people were, as well as any surface contamination.” (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday that its air monitoring of the site during and after the fire showed “no risk to public health” from the incident, based on testing for hydrogen fluoride and particulate matter.)


 
Top