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

[ThatRobGuy]

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? | U.S. Geological Survey

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? | U.S. Geological Survey

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]

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.

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? | U.S. Geological Survey

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? | U.S. Geological Survey

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

Wind power set to overtake coal generation capacity in Montana​

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