Interactive US Powerplant maps

[Cujet]

This is a cool way to view our electric grid and what produces the power. There is even a cool map with a sliding bar to see the changes over time. There are even renewable energy maps and fossil fuel maps.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ma...R20gl4FH7zMer2Z_ZL_I8kSWl5bn92E1LLKQRKGI

It's good to remember that this is only electrical power. It has nothing to do with transportation energy (EV's and light rail being the exception) and the incredible quantities of fuel consumed heating our homes and businesses.

 

[PimTac]

Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

 

[CT8]

Just think if we all had firewood to cook ,heat water and our homes. FYI during the California gold rush and the trans continental railroad California's forests were denuded in the gold country and along the railroads to build the mine supports water flumes, track beds ,bridges and feed the boilers in the trains etc. So many people are so uninformed..

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted by CT8
Just think if we all had firewood to cook ,heat water and our homes. FYI during the California gold rush and the trans continental railroad California's forests were denuded in the gold country and along the railroads to build the mine supports water flumes, track beds ,bridges and feed the boilers in the trains etc. So many people are so uninformed..

The data is out there.

Back in the 90's I ran into a statistic, the USA already had 60% more hardwood tree coverage than in 1900.

You never hear about that any more, just complaining "monoculture" and condemning the timber industry for replanting the same kind of trees that they harvest. But America has been reforesting for quite a while, both softwoods and hardwoods, all since the shift to natural gas, oil, and electric for heating.

 

[CT8]

The forests will either need to be logged or let burn.The lumber harvesting is why the forest fires were fought to save the lumber until the save the earth people started to ban logging. Forest fires used to burn until they quit burning.

 

[Wolf359]

I like to look at the morning report once in a while for our area. It's more interesting in the summer when demand hits a peak, but also interesting sometimes in the winter when some gas generation is curtailed due to extreme cold weather and there isn't enough pipeline supply to heat homes and run the gas generators.

https://www.iso-ne.com/markets-operations/system-forecast-status/morning-report

 

[Cujet]

I occasionally heat my PA home with wood. The wood burner has a max output of 65,000 BTU/HR. It takes a LOT of wood to create that much heat. Typical firewood has a value of about 8500 BTU per pound. Also, most firewood has roughly the same BTU per pound regardless of species. It's the density of hard Oak that gives it better BTU per cord. Also wood stove efficiency is not great, unless it's an uber efficient model. All are over 60% though and most hover around 70%.

People really have no idea just how much fuel is burned heating homes and businesses. I found a heat map once and it was stunning just how much fuel the North East uses just to heat homes and businesses.

 

[Snagglefoot]

The main stream press always makes it seem like solar and wind are further along than they really are.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
The main stream press always makes it seem like solar and wind are further along than they really are.


It's awfully hard to shift the mindset of the populace against the current cheaper, more effective means of heating and transportation (hydrocarbon fuels) if you're telling the whole truth.

Paraphrasing Hitler: a big lie is more believeable than a small lie if you tell it frequently enough and forcibly enough. It's all propaganda.

 

[FlyNavyP3]

Very cool, thanks for sharing.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
The main stream press always makes it seem like solar and wind are further along than they really are.


That's especially true when all energy use is considered, and not just the grid. Solar/wind make a visible dent in grid power, for sure. However, when one considers that electrical power is only 38% of our total energy use, solar and wind amount to near nothing at just over 2%. In fact, I'd guess that it would be fully impossible to meet 100% of our energy needs with solar and wind regardless of how extensive the farms are.

 

[PimTac]

It's clear how dependent the PNW and the immediate surrounding region is on hydroelectric power generation. The dams also provide irrigation that has had a huge impact on the eastern side of the Cascades resulting in a good agricultural industry.

The greenies however want to get rid of the dams. That would be a huge mistake.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
The main stream press always makes it seem like solar and wind are further along than they really are.


That's especially true when all energy use is considered, and not just the grid. Solar/wind make a visible dent in grid power, for sure. However, when one considers that electrical power is only 38% of our total energy use, solar and wind amount to near nothing at just over 2%. In fact, I'd guess that it would be fully impossible to meet 100% of our energy needs with solar and wind regardless of how extensive the farms are.




It's probably going to take a while. Solar power went from about 10 megawatts in 2010 to about 2391 megawatts for 2017 in the New England area. They're projecting it to be about 5833 by 2027.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/in-depth/solar-power-in-new-england-locations-and-impact

Who knows when fusion power will finally take off, they say they're close, maybe in about another 20 years, but it's been about 20 years away for years.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
The main stream press always makes it seem like solar and wind are further along than they really are.


That's especially true when all energy use is considered, and not just the grid. Solar/wind make a visible dent in grid power, for sure. However, when one considers that electrical power is only 38% of our total energy use, solar and wind amount to near nothing at just over 2%. In fact, I'd guess that it would be fully impossible to meet 100% of our energy needs with solar and wind regardless of how extensive the farms are.




It's probably going to take a while. Solar power went from about 10 megawatts in 2010 to about 2391 megawatts for 2017 in the New England area. They're projecting it to be about 5833 by 2027.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/in-depth/solar-power-in-new-england-locations-and-impact

Who knows when fusion power will finally take off, they say they're close, maybe in about another 20 years, but it's been about 20 years away for years.


You can't just compare installed capacity though. 5,833MW of solar sounds amazing until you realize that its average CF is

Thus, 5,833MW of solar with a 16% CF would produce only 8TWh a year of the roughly 115TWh currently used; 7%, whilst the same capacity in Nuclear would produce 47TWh; 41%.

That page you linked explains the implications of intermittency and the amount of firming and reserve supply needed to deal with it reasonably well.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted by CT8
The forests will either need to be logged or let burn.The lumber harvesting is why the forest fires were fought to save the lumber until the save the earth people started to ban logging. Forest fires used to burn until they quit burning.

Well that is one point but its a small piece of the puzzle and more of a soundbite. It shows either unwillingness to admit the problem or to understand the problem. And unfortunately gets into politics. I'll stop there.
https://www.wcel.org/blog/science-behind-bcs-forest-fires

Thanks cujet!!