Community Chat

[Cakers3]

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@Spurt wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

The sooner we make the switch to clean energy the better off we will be. Thankfully, those steps are being taken and the infrastructure to support it is being implemented. Not soon enough.

Sorry for the people in that area. High real estate values there and to have those beaches befouled is not good for the wildlife or the residents.

---

BTW clean energy was a failure in Texas's artic storm in February....wewent without heat and water (energy is needed to run water systems) it went on for weeks....frigid weather caused burst pipes and damage to homes...sadly food had to be thrown away...States that were going to help Texas (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri)  soon had their own energy crisis problems and no reserves to help) solar and wind failed.....

---

From what I understand, wind and solar is only a tiny piece of the Texas energy infrastructure.

Are you saying Texas exclusively uses wind and solar and when it failed, people died? You don't use fossil fuel in Texas for the majority of your energy?

Interesting.

---

@JamandBread   No she did not say that Texas exclusively uses wind and solar.  I don't know how you are reading that in her post but she indicated that the wind/solar breakdown was part of the problem.

You have to remember that the summer months are the peak energy times for Texas.  Coal/natural gas sources can also undergo maitenance during off-peak seasons to gear up for summer.

The competition for natural gas  (along with a shortage in supply) and above normal consumer usage caused depressurization of lines that no longer worked below a certain pressure point.

From ERCOT ( % of generating capacity)

• Natural gas (51%)
• Wind (24.8%)
• Coal (13.4%)
• Nuclear (4.9%)
• Solar (3.8%)
• Hydro, biomass-fired units (1.9%)

[Cakers3]

---

@bmorechick wrote:

So incredibly sad...we have poisoned the land, polluted the streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes and now have moved onto the seas and oceans.  

I have always said that man is the worse thing to happen this planet 🌍 

---

---

@bmorechick wrote:

So incredibly sad...we have poisoned the land, polluted the streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes and now have moved onto the seas and oceans.  

I have always said that man is the worse thing to happen this planet 🌍 

---

@bmorechick   Agree 1000%.

[JamandBread]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@Spurt wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

The sooner we make the switch to clean energy the better off we will be. Thankfully, those steps are being taken and the infrastructure to support it is being implemented. Not soon enough.

Sorry for the people in that area. High real estate values there and to have those beaches befouled is not good for the wildlife or the residents.

---

BTW clean energy was a failure in Texas's artic storm in February....wewent without heat and water (energy is needed to run water systems) it went on for weeks....frigid weather caused burst pipes and damage to homes...sadly food had to be thrown away...States that were going to help Texas (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri)  soon had their own energy crisis problems and no reserves to help) solar and wind failed.....

---

From what I understand, wind and solar is only a tiny piece of the Texas energy infrastructure.

Are you saying Texas exclusively uses wind and solar and when it failed, people died? You don't use fossil fuel in Texas for the majority of your energy?

Interesting.

---

@JamandBread   No she did not say that Texas exclusively uses wind and solar.  I don't know how you are reading that in her post but she indicated that the wind/solar breakdown was part of the problem.

You have to remember that the summer months are the peak energy times for Texas.  Coal/natural gas sources can also undergo maitenance during off-peak seasons to gear up for summer.

The competition for natural gas  (along with a shortage in supply) and above normal consumer usage caused depressurization of lines that no longer worked below a certain pressure point.

From ERCOT ( % of generating capacity)

• Natural gas (51%)
• Wind (24.8%)
• Coal (13.4%)
• Nuclear (4.9%)
• Solar (3.8%)
• Hydro, biomass-fired units (1.9%)

---

She said that clean energy was a failure. The cause of the abomination that occurred in Texas where people froze to death. Those weren't her words, but I can deduce her intentions from her statement. BTW, has that failure been addressed?

Just to clarify...70% of the infrastructure is fossil fuel and nuclear and when that failed, wind and solar was supposed to pick up the slack?

[Spurt]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@Spurt wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

The sooner we make the switch to clean energy the better off we will be. Thankfully, those steps are being taken and the infrastructure to support it is being implemented. Not soon enough.

Sorry for the people in that area. High real estate values there and to have those beaches befouled is not good for the wildlife or the residents.

---

BTW clean energy was a failure in Texas's artic storm in February....wewent without heat and water (energy is needed to run water systems) it went on for weeks....frigid weather caused burst pipes and damage to homes...sadly food had to be thrown away...States that were going to help Texas (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri)  soon had their own energy crisis problems and no reserves to help) solar and wind failed.....

---

From what I understand, wind and solar is only a tiny piece of the Texas energy infrastructure.

Are you saying Texas exclusively uses wind and solar and when it failed, people died? You don't use fossil fuel in Texas for the majority of your energy?

Interesting.

---

@JamandBread   No she did not say that Texas exclusively uses wind and solar.  I don't know how you are reading that in her post but she indicated that the wind/solar breakdown was part of the problem.

You have to remember that the summer months are the peak energy times for Texas.  Coal/natural gas sources can also undergo maitenance during off-peak seasons to gear up for summer.

The competition for natural gas  (along with a shortage in supply) and above normal consumer usage caused depressurization of lines that no longer worked below a certain pressure point.

From ERCOT ( % of generating capacity)

• Natural gas (51%)
• Wind (24.8%)
• Coal (13.4%)
• Nuclear (4.9%)
• Solar (3.8%)
• Hydro, biomass-fired units (1.9%)

---

@Cakers3 

Thanks CAKERS3 for saying it much better than I did! 

[Spurt]

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@Spurt wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

The sooner we make the switch to clean energy the better off we will be. Thankfully, those steps are being taken and the infrastructure to support it is being implemented. Not soon enough.

Sorry for the people in that area. High real estate values there and to have those beaches befouled is not good for the wildlife or the residents.

---

BTW clean energy was a failure in Texas's artic storm in February....wewent without heat and water (energy is needed to run water systems) it went on for weeks....frigid weather caused burst pipes and damage to homes...sadly food had to be thrown away...States that were going to help Texas (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri)  soon had their own energy crisis problems and no reserves to help) solar and wind failed.....

---

From what I understand, wind and solar is only a tiny piece of the Texas energy infrastructure.

Are you saying Texas exclusively uses wind and solar and when it failed, people died? You don't use fossil fuel in Texas for the majority of your energy?

Interesting.

---

@JamandBread   No she did not say that Texas exclusively uses wind and solar.  I don't know how you are reading that in her post but she indicated that the wind/solar breakdown was part of the problem.

You have to remember that the summer months are the peak energy times for Texas.  Coal/natural gas sources can also undergo maitenance during off-peak seasons to gear up for summer.

The competition for natural gas  (along with a shortage in supply) and above normal consumer usage caused depressurization of lines that no longer worked below a certain pressure point.

From ERCOT ( % of generating capacity)

• Natural gas (51%)
• Wind (24.8%)
• Coal (13.4%)
• Nuclear (4.9%)
• Solar (3.8%)
• Hydro, biomass-fired units (1.9%)

---

She said that clean energy was a failure. The cause of the abomination that occurred in Texas where people froze to death. Those weren't her words, but I can deduce her intentions from her statement. BTW, has that failure been addressed?

Just to clarify...70% of the infrastructure is fossil fuel and nuclear and when that failed, wind and solar was supposed to pick up the slack?

---

@JamandBread 

51% is natural gas which is viewed as a  “clean” or “environmentally friendly” energy source that has lowered CO2 emissions in the United States. Per report Aug 18, 2020.....

Never did I say that green energy was the cause of  people's deaths--never did I take the conversation in that direction. All Im saying is that wind/solar didnt help this situation. What if it was the only power available? Our city conducted it's own investigation, it outlined the cause and outlined steps to prevent a reocurrence....the report is on our city's website.

There's 2 sides to every story....All Im trying to say is there is another side to so called "green energy" there are concerns--its not the ultimate solution. This post is the end of my discussion on the topic

Desert News 

The dark side of ‘green energy’ and its threat to the nation’s environment

By Amy Joi O'Donoghue Jan 30, 2021, 10:00pm 

Wind farms and massive arrays of solar panels are cropping up across public and private landscapes both in the United States and abroad as users increasingly turn to “green energy” as their preferred flavor of electricity.

But how green is green? Although countries are feverishly looking to install wind and solar farms to wean themselves off carbon-based, or so-called “dirty” energy, few countries, operators and the industry itself have yet to fully tackle the long-term consequences of how to dispose of these systems, which have their own environmental hazards like toxic metals, oil, fiberglass and other material.

A briefing paper released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency predicts these startling global numbers for countries by 2050 just for solar waste:

• United States, 10 million tons.
• Germany, 3 million tons.
• China, 20 million tons.
• Japan, 7.5 million tons.
• India, 7.5 million tons.

Solar arrays have a life cycle of about 30 years, but the rapid adoption of solar in the United States and elsewhere has the problem of disposal creeping up in the rearview mirror — faster rather than later.

Green waste growth

The EPA paper points out that the growth of solar waste is already straining recycling and disposal capabilities, with some panels improperly ending up in municipal landfills or stacking up in warehouses while the wait continues for more inexpensive routes to recycling. The issue foreshadows the potential for the creation of a new class of hazardous waste sites under EPA Superfund designations as clean energy operators walk away from a large volume of materials that contaminate the soil and groundwater.

Wind power also is taking off as a clean energy resource, but the EPA notes that windmills are the least energy producing and most physically difficult renewable energy waste stream to address. The sheer size of the windmills and the difficulty of disposing of them at recycling stations led the agency to conclude that each new wind farm is a “towering promise of future wreckage.”