Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

ThatRobGuy · Dec 6, 2023

rambot said:
Regardless of how spaced out they will need to be (let's all agree the US heartland does not have a problem with space), the footprint (ie...the amount of land actually affected and removed from agriculture would be much smaller).

You're correct in that we have space.

I guess one of the other major challenges that a lot of people don't think about until it's mentioned is actually having to get them from point A to point B. Germany ran into that challenge:

Germany's wind power expansion stalls on the roads

Germany's wind power expansion is facing an unexpected roadblock: builders need permits to transport the heavy turbines down the country's roads, and they are waiting months to get them.

www.reuters.com

(it's such a large load to haul that it involves temporarily shutting down highways, getting police escorts to block and redirect traffic away from major highways, finding routes that only involve roads that can withstand an oversized load, and in some cases having to dismantle certain structures and bridges to get them where they need to be)

According to a couple of various sources (full disclosure, I haven't thoroughly fact checked these, but they appear to be from credible sources)

We'd need about 1.2 million wind turbines to fully power the US on wind.

How Many Wind Turbines Would It Take To Power The US?

How many wind turbines would it take to power the US? This question was originally answered on Quora by Michael Barnard.

www.forbes.com

As of right now, we've been installing them at a rate of about 3,000 per year

How many wind turbines are installed in the U.S. each year?

The number of turbines installed in the U.S. each year varies based on a number of factors, but on average 3,000 turbines have been built in the U.S. each year since 2005. Learn more: Wind Energy U.S. Wind Turbine Database

www.usgs.gov

And have around 70k of them in use as of last year

How many turbines are contained in the U.S. Wind Turbine Database?

As of January 2022, the U.S. Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB) contains more than 70,800 turbines. These turbines have all been constructed since 1980 in approximately 1,500 wind power projects spanning at least 44 states (plus Puerto Rico and Guam). Learn more: Wind Energy

www.usgs.gov

Even if we wanted to get the the 25% benchmark, it'd be over 60 years at the rate we're going.

Seems like we'd almost need to first invest in standing up factories that make them, in relatively close proximity to the places we know we'd want to put them in order to bypass some of the headaches Germany is going through.

rambot · Dec 6, 2023

ThatRobGuy said:
You're correct in that we have space.

I guess one of the other major challenges that a lot of people don't think about until it's mentioned is actually having to get them from point A to point B. Germany ran into that challenge:

Germany's wind power expansion stalls on the roads

Germany's wind power expansion is facing an unexpected roadblock: builders need permits to transport the heavy turbines down the country's roads, and they are waiting months to get them.

www.reuters.com

(it's such a large load to haul that it involves temporarily shutting down highways, getting police escorts to block and redirect traffic away from major highways, finding routes that only involve roads that can withstand an oversized load, and in some cases having to dismantle certain structures and bridges to get them where they need to be)

I gotta tell ya, I can't say for certain what highways through the heartland of the US look like but I'm not sure they would have the same challenges as in Germany, with the exception of the distance it would need to travel.

Ultimately, and I mean no disrespect here, these seem like very, very trivial and easily beatable challenges for American ingenuity.

ThatRobGuy said:
According to a couple of various sources (full disclosure, I haven't thoroughly fact checked these, but they appear to be from credible sources)

We'd need about 1.2 million wind turbines to fully power the US on wind.

How Many Wind Turbines Would It Take To Power The US?

How many wind turbines would it take to power the US? This question was originally answered on Quora by Michael Barnard.

www.forbes.com

As of right now, we've been installing them at a rate of about 3,000 per year

How many wind turbines are installed in the U.S. each year?

The number of turbines installed in the U.S. each year varies based on a number of factors, but on average 3,000 turbines have been built in the U.S. each year since 2005. Learn more: Wind Energy U.S. Wind Turbine Database

www.usgs.gov

And have around 70k of them in use as of last year

How many turbines are contained in the U.S. Wind Turbine Database?

As of January 2022, the U.S. Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB) contains more than 70,800 turbines. These turbines have all been constructed since 1980 in approximately 1,500 wind power projects spanning at least 44 states (plus Puerto Rico and Guam). Learn more: Wind Energy

www.usgs.gov

Even if we wanted to get the the 25% benchmark, it'd be over 60 years at the rate we're going.

Seems like we'd almost need to first invest in standing up factories that make them, in relatively close proximity to the places we know we'd want to put them in order to bypass some of the headaches Germany is going through.

I would posit that investing solely in ONE type of renewable energy would not be the way to go. But between tidal, hydroelectric (though....who knows how long that will last), wind, solar, geothermal....nuclear. All these can work together. Also, there will ALWAYS be space for fossil fuels.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 7, 2023

rambot said:
I would posit that investing solely in ONE type of renewable energy would not be the way to go. But between tidal, hydroelectric (though....who knows how long that will last), wind, solar, geothermal....nuclear. All these can work together.

That's why I mentioned that at our current rate, it would take us 60 years to get to the 25% mark (meaning that a quarter of the power would come from wind...I picked that number because that's similar to the share of power Portugal gets from wind)

I think the turnaround time on solar is quicker (depending on which state you live in...I hear it's a pretty quick turnaround time in some states, and a regulatory headache in others)

For Tidal power, scientists seem to be less "keen" on that one compared to the other two based on the fact that they've described it as "fickle"

Tidal Power Faces a Fickle Future with Rising Seas

To pull power from the waves, you need a high tidal range or strong currents. Sea-level rise threatens to mess with both

www.scientificamerican.com

Of their 978 theoretical estuaries, a total of 54 had currents fast enough to drive tidal turbines. This number dropped to 47 in simulations with one meter of sea level rise. With two meters of sea level rise, it fell to 40. Even in estuaries that did keep their tidal power potential, Khojasteh says that in some the actual spot within the estuary where the water was moving at the necessary speed moved around.

Sea level rise is “going to displace, eliminate, or create new optimal sites across the system,” Khojasteh says.

...so it sounds like tidal isn't quite as "predictable" as solar where you can set up the solar farms and it's kind of a "set it and forget it", tidal could face the challenge of "the spot that was perfect for it now, may not be in 10 years, and now there's this other place they need to be set up".

rambot · Dec 7, 2023

ThatRobGuy said:
That's why I mentioned that at our current rate, it would take us 60 years to get to the 25% mark (meaning that a quarter of the power would come from wind...I picked that number because that's similar to the share of power Portugal gets from wind)

I think the turnaround time on solar is quicker (depending on which state you live in...I hear it's a pretty quick turnaround time in some states, and a regulatory headache in others)

For Tidal power, scientists seem to be less "keen" on that one compared to the other two based on the fact that they've described it as "fickle"

Tidal Power Faces a Fickle Future with Rising Seas

To pull power from the waves, you need a high tidal range or strong currents. Sea-level rise threatens to mess with both

www.scientificamerican.com

Of their 978 theoretical estuaries, a total of 54 had currents fast enough to drive tidal turbines. This number dropped to 47 in simulations with one meter of sea level rise. With two meters of sea level rise, it fell to 40. Even in estuaries that did keep their tidal power potential, Khojasteh says that in some the actual spot within the estuary where the water was moving at the necessary speed moved around.

Sea level rise is “going to displace, eliminate, or create new optimal sites across the system,” Khojasteh says.

...so it sounds like tidal isn't quite as "predictable" as solar where you can set up the solar farms and it's kind of a "set it and forget it", tidal could face the challenge of "the spot that was perfect for it now, may not be in 10 years, and now there's this other place they need to be set up".

Interesting. I've never really understood tidal power...

Jipsah · Dec 13, 2023

Laodicean60 said:
I wish they would supplement here with nuclear so those brownouts don't interrupt my video game.

<Laugh> I'm an "all of the above" guy. I like solar, wind, hydro, nukes, and fossil, in descending order. The problem with solar and wind should be obvious - exrtemely low density. Good stuff, but we're not that good at harnessing it yet. Hydro has its drawbacks, but generally good stuff - where you can manage it. Middlin' density. Nukes are th sure bet right now. Endless density with existying technology, minimal environmental impact. (BTW, Chernobyl was to nuclear power what the Hindenburg was to air travel - a graphic illustration of how not to do something.) Of fossil, gas isn't too bad, coal is appaling. Unfortunately the no-nukes folks, driven on by invincible ignorance, have managed to keep clean nuclear power from replaceing grimly toxic and environmentally destructive coal with their Luddite scare tactics. I'd ban coal in a New York minute in favor of nukes if there was any way to get it done. but the "environmentalists" insist on making the perfect the enemy of the good, so we continue to foul our air and water, and yes, kill people in their thousands every year, because of stupid insistnce on jumping to technologies that just bloody aren there yet.

Laodicean60 · Dec 13, 2023

Jipsah said:
I'd ban coal in a New York minute in favor

I'm an old Star Trek dude and thought we'd be in space right now. That's why I'm big on nuclear tech because of space travel. With 50-year-old tech, it has been fairly safe and I'm sure technology has gotten better. I'm not up on fusion and haven't heard of any breakthrus. Couldn't you imagine having a mini-reactor for our homes and exchanging them at the convenience stores like we do propane tanks for our grills? We are manipulated by the prevailing desires of the ultra-rich and part of me think they want us dead. More for them. Peace

Jipsah · Dec 13, 2023

Laodicean60 said:
I'm an old Star Trek dude and thought we'd be in space right now. That's why I'm big on nuclear tech because of space travel. With 50-year-old tech, it has been fairly safe and I'm sure technology has gotten better.

Better by orders of magnitude. And just consider how hard the imbeciles who caused the Chernobyl disaster had to work to make it happen, and fight the techs off who'd have kept it from happening. And that even though the Chernobyl plant was a nightmarishly bad design even by mid-80's standards and could never have been licensed in the even then. Add to that that the remaining reactors there continued in production without incident for years after the disaster.

Laodicean60 said:
I'm not up on fusion and haven't heard of any breakthrus.

No dramatic ones. Still not close to break-even, which has been "10 years away" since the late 70s.

Laodicean60 said:
Couldn't you imagine having a mini-reactor for our homes and exchanging them at the convenience stores like we do propane tanks for our grills?

I don't expect that in my lifetime, but it would be nice.

Laodicean60 said:
We are manipulated by the prevailing desires of the ultra-rich and part of me think they want us dead. More for them. Peace

It's the ultra-stupid who worry me, especialy when they're ultra-rich as well.

Jipsah · Dec 13, 2023

Laodicean60 said:
I'm big on nuclear tech

Just an after thought here. I'm back and forth to Denmark a lot (daughter and family live there). They do wind a lot better than we do. They're better situated for it than we are, with a lot more consistent winds kindly provided by the oceans that surround them on three sides. But apart from that, they aren't as fixated with monster wind farms as we are. They make it worthwhile for landowners to allow turbines to be set up on their land, so as you drive out in the country you see lots of them widely scattered where individuals have allowed them to be set up in return for a reasonabale amout of rent for the land they're sitting on. It's amazing how quckly "not in my back yard" turns into "put it on top of that hill right there" when you offer to pay folks for the use of their land instead of snatching it away from them via eminent domain.

essentialsaltes · Dec 24, 2023

Wind power set to overtake coal generation capacity in Montana

Fun fact: hydroelectric power in Montana is bigger than either coal or wind.

essentialsaltes · Apr 24, 2025

Spain hits first weekday of 100% renewable power on national grid

Spain’s grid ran entirely on renewable energy for the first time on April 16, with wind, solar, and hydro meeting all peninsular electricity demand during a weekday. Five days later, solar set a new record, generating 20,120 MW of instantaneous power – covering 78.6% of demand and 61.5% of the grid mix.

essentialsaltes · Jun 1, 2026

Interesting factoid from the recent heat wave in Europe

European heat wave breaks records, generates massive solar power, sends energy prices down

The system pushed away cloud cover across a wide swath of the U.K., leading to unusually sunny skies that intensified the heat while also boosting solar power generation. At its peak around midday Sunday, solar met almost half of the U.K.’s electricity demand — the highest ever, according to official data. The surge in renewable output weighed on Europe’s power market, pushing hourly prices in France below zero at one point.

[on the negative side, warmer rivers mean that nuclear plants in France have to reduce power, because they can't get enough cooling from the water. Likewise, lower water levels can have an effect on hydroelectric power]

Bob Crowley · Jun 1, 2026

Off topic somewhat, but I've been reading a book on hydrogen as a power source. The author knows his stuff and has been involved with energy production all his life, mostly in Europe.

At one point he made the comment that about one percent of the solar energy hitting the Sahara desert would be enough to theoretically supply all the electricity needs of the world. I checked this online and an AI summary came up as follows -

Covering just (1.2%) of the Sahara Desert with solar panels is enough to theoretically supply the electricity needs of the entire world. Since only a tiny fraction of the desert's total sunlight would be needed to harvest this power, it represents a minute fraction of the sun's total energy hitting the Sahara each day. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The raw math and practical realities behind this concept include:

The Scale: The Sahara Desert spans about \(9.2\) million square kilometers (\(3.6\) million square miles). Covering \(1.2\%\) of this area equals roughly \(110,400\) square kilometers (an area slightly smaller than Cuba or Pennsylvania). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Physics: The Sahara receives more than \(4,300\) hours of intense sunlight per year. Assuming current commercial solar panel efficiency of \(15-20\%\), this small patch of panels could generate over \(160,000\) Terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity annually, easily surpassing total global energy consumption. [1, 2, 3]

The Challenges: While the theoretical math is staggering, building a project of this magnitude in one of the harshest environments on Earth faces major practical hurdles. These include extreme temperature fluctuations, sandstorms that degrade equipment efficiency, and enormous costs required to build and maintain thousands of kilometers of transmission lines to get the power to major global hubs. [1, 2, 3]

As noted there are technical barriers, but if we add a combination of solar, wind and nuclear power over a wide enough area and connect them all up, there would be plenty of renewable energy to go round. While the sun will suffer a heat death one day, I think Christ will have returned a very long time before that.

The key thing is that the the network needs to be wide. Parts of Europe get a lot of wind power, and might even export some of that back to Libya or Algeria for example on the rare occasion they are having inclement weather or maybe a sandstorm.

The other issues are politics and vested interests. The big oil and natural gas companies won't like it nor the coal miners. And there is our prediliction for war, with the ever present threat of nuclear war. The two nations with the biggest nuclear stockpiles, Russia and the USA, are both at war right now, although fortunately not with each other.

Pakistan and India have considerable nuclear armaments, and don't or won't get along with each other.

There is a solution to our energy problems. Whether we achieve it or wreck everything remains to be seen.

Vanellus · Jun 24, 2026

With another heat wave in Europe (the US has them too) are Americans beginning to question Trump's *burn baby burn* policy?

essentialsaltes · Jun 24, 2026

Vanellus said:
With another heat wave in Europe (the US has them too) are Americans beginning to question Trump's *burn baby burn* policy?

A few dead Frenchmen aren't going to change anything, I'm afraid.

The most hopeful sign is that some very red states like Texas and Iowa have really jumped wholeheartedly into solar and wind.

rambot · Jun 25, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
Point of reference, you need 60 acres of land per megawatt produced.

You will be very happy to learn that a megawatt can now be produced by only 5-7 acres.

I feel like that really changes land usage arguments.

That is a pretty incredible technological leap!

rambot · Jun 25, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
This is the difference between the density of wind turbines on the landscape (how many can fit in 1 square mile =~ 10 and be effective) and the amount of that land actually used exclusively for the turbine. I've seen many a wind farm in farm land and the typical individual turbine only knocks a chuck of land out of production about the size of a suburban yard or a local electrical substation.

Yup. Absurd to claim that "land usage" is a huge impact in wind electricity generation. They can still very easily use the land underneath for farming and, well, anything.

Perpetual Student · Jun 25, 2026

rambot said:
Yup. Absurd to claim that "land usage" is a huge impact in wind electricity generation. They can still very easily use the land underneath for farming and, well, anything.

We can't expose cows to cancer causing windmills. Do you want Americans to eat windmill cancer? MAHA!

essentialsaltes · Jun 26, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
A few dead Frenchmen aren't going to change anything, I'm afraid.

Europe’s extreme heat would be impossible without climate change, scientists say

The World Weather Attribution rapid study released Friday found that the heat would have been virtually impossible just five decades ago, and is 200 times more likely today than it would have been 20 years ago.

DaisyDay · Jun 26, 2026

Perpetual Student said:
We can't expose cows to cancer causing windmills. Do you want Americans to eat windmill cancer? MAHA!

View attachment 380706

RFK JR and Brooke Rollins better do something, stat!

Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Member

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Fact-Based Lifeform

Wind power set to overtake coal generation capacity in Montana​

Fact-Based Lifeform

Spain hits first weekday of 100% renewable power on national grid​

Fact-Based Lifeform

European heat wave breaks records, generates massive solar power, sends energy prices down​

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Fact-Based Lifeform

Senior Member

Senior Member

Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time

Fact-Based Lifeform

Europe’s extreme heat would be impossible without climate change, scientists say​

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Similar threads

Wind power set to overtake coal generation capacity in Montana

Spain hits first weekday of 100% renewable power on national grid

European heat wave breaks records, generates massive solar power, sends energy prices down

Europe’s extreme heat would be impossible without climate change, scientists say