The Texas Town That Just Quit Fossil Fuels

rocket sok
Wildman Rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I don’t really have anything against renewable energy in theory. The problem is we’re not there yet and we have a bunch of folks who want us to throw away what we have now before we have something that can REALISTICLY replace it.

Perhaps the most problematic concern with wind is that there is no means by which excess power can be stored for later peak-hour-needs. There have been several theories considered and a couple of them have even been tried commercially; they all either failed technologically or the company went bankrupt.
 
How are we supposed to get there if we don't try wind and solar and tidal and whatever other renewable sources can be developed? What are we throwing away by becoming less dependent on what he have (fossil fuels) now? Nobody is saying that wind power or any other alternative energy is going to replace oil and coal NOW. Throwing away? More like conserving what's left until viable alternatives are developed. Alternatives take time to develop and make economically feasible. Finally a town has found a way to prove that in some cases, it is possible. We sure better continue trying to make that more widespread, and I hope their model will work for other communities.

I don't post much and have had to bite my tongue many times, but finally I've seen enough.

"Warmists should be punished"

Really? So, people that are concerned about the earth...should be punished? We're making life that hard on you, and doing society that much harm by trying to look out for us, and the future inhabitants of the planet? I have 30 years of science and engineering background, and I chose not to ignore the problem, so I should be punished? Sorry to make it another taboo global warming thread TB, and thank you for the link, but if that kind of blanket opinion and judgement can be expressed, I can post mine. At least for now.
 
boomtube-mk2 said:
I don’t really have anything against renewable energy in theory. The problem is we’re not there yet and we have a bunch of folks who want us to throw away what we have now before we have something that can REALISTICLY replace it.

Perhaps the most problematic concern with wind is that there is no means by which excess power can be stored for later peak-hour-needs. There have been several theories considered and a couple of them have even been tried commercially; they all either failed technologically or the company went bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Assuming growing populations and growing economies, our energy consumption is going to continue to grow. What I hope to see, and what I think is actually happening for the most part, is that the growth will be in renewables. We have enough installed capacity in fossil fuel plants, and we don't need more.

Fortunately, you don't really need to store the electricity generated by solar, because the demand for electricity occurs mostly when the sun is shining. It makes more sense to add more solar capacity to provide power during peak demand periods than it does to add another coal plant. Coal plants have their own problems in that they don't really throttle up and down that well --- they generally run at one constant rate. You don't always need all that power.

Wind is another type of power that does not necessarily need to be stored. Depending on when the wind blows, it may occur when power is needed, or it may offset something like solar that occurs at another time of day, like it does for this Texas town in the article.

Obviously it is best to have a robust mix of power sources so taht you can cover all of your needs whenever they occur during the day.
 
There is only one form of renewable power generation and that is a closed cycle nuclear breed cycle station.

Wind and solar are merely fuel substitution plays that allow fossil plants to throttle down when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Not that is a bad thing but there has to be a supply of base power generation somewhere that has to be paid for.

Solar is promising for distributed applications but data and experience so far is that is doesn't scale well. I hope that changes but if we want to get away from fossil fuels nuclear has to be part of conversation. If it is not then the advocacy for a low carbon power economy is not serious.
 
Last edited:
Rocket86 said:
How are we supposed to get there if we don't try wind and solar and tidal and whatever other renewable sources can be developed? What are we throwing away by becoming less dependent on what he have (fossil fuels) now? Nobody is saying that wind power or any other alternative energy is going to replace oil and coal NOW. Throwing away? More like conserving what's left until viable alternatives are developed. Alternatives take time to develop and make economically feasible. Finally a town has found a way to prove that in some cases, it is possible. We sure better continue trying to make that more widespread, and I hope their model will work for other communities.

I don't post much and have had to bite my tongue many times, but finally I've seen enough.

"Warmists should be punished"

Really? So, people that are concerned about the earth...should be punished? We're making life that hard on you, and doing society that much harm by trying to look out for us, and the future inhabitants of the planet? I have 30 years of science and engineering background, and I chose not to ignore the problem, so I should be punished? Sorry to make it another taboo global warming thread TB, and thank you for the link, but if that kind of blanket opinion and judgement can be expressed, I can post mine. At least for now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post, John. I appreciate your point of view on this, but let's keep the thread focused on the article and the economics. Regarding the "Warmists should be punished" quote, I'm going to guess that old_dude posted that mostly to rile ME up, and you are just collateral damage. I've met him at launches, and he is a good guy, but he likes to yank my chain a little bit when it comes to these topics. Don't fall for it! That way lies heartburn!

Thanks again.
 
On the flip side, there's a straw hat argument that suggests that if someone doesn't believe in global warming, or at least global warming caused by industrial activities, that he doesn't care about the environment. Just because someone doesn't believe in warming doesn't mean he doesn't care about the environment. While there are clear benefits to industrial activity that doesn't involve burning non renewable resources or releasing dirty stuff, this has become political simply because of carbon credits.
 
DaveHein said:
If you don't trust slate.com for business try Bloomberg.com. There are dozens of sites where you can read the same article about the Georgetown power plans. I don't understand why so many people seem to be negative about renewable energy. It's the way of the future -- that is until fusion power is developed and energy becomes free at that point. :)
Click to expand...
Srsly? A guy from one of the two Blue cities in Texas tells me to trust Bloomberg? Isn't that the same super nanny-statist formerly Mayor of NYC? The same guy behind #IllegalMayors, #MomsDemandAction, and #EverytownForGunSafety, Initiative 594 in Washington state, and now pouring money into Arizona and Nevada to push gun control legislation there, too?

You keep your advice.

I hear Austin is only 15 minutes from Texas in any direction.
 
o1d_dude said:
Sort of.

It's just north of Austin (explains a lot, right?) and just south of where I used to live in Killeen. Other family lives to the west in Marble Falls.
Click to expand...

Killeen! Brings back a lot of bad memories. Ft. Hood, Harker Heights and Lake Belton. 1963-1965. Beautiful country now that I no longer have to climb those hills. I understand that the area is now overrun with pot heads, meth labs and motorcycle gangs.
 
I'm only in Austin so I can go to UT. I can't say I like the liberal-ness but there's a little of both I like... can't decide which side is better honestly.
 
o1d_dude said:
Sort of.

It's just north of Austin (explains a lot, right?) and just south of where I used to live in Killeen. Other family lives to the west in Marble Falls.
Click to expand...

Georgetown (where I live, curiously enough) is indeed just north of Austin. The two communities could not be more different, however. Austin is in Travis County, one of the most politically liberal places in the US. Georgetown is in Williamson County, one of the most conservative communities in America.

James
 
James Duffy said:
Georgetown (where I live, curiously enough) is indeed just north of Austin. The two communities could not be more different, however. Austin is in Travis County, one of the most politically liberal places in the US. Georgetown is in Williamson County, one of the most conservative communities in America.

James
Click to expand...

Well, this is great! You are actually from the town we are talking about. What is your take on this decision? Do you think it is a good idea or bad? Do you think it is based mostly on economics or politics?
 
taiwanluthiers said:
On the flip side, there's a straw hat argument that suggests that if someone doesn't believe in global warming, or at least global warming caused by industrial activities, that he doesn't care about the environment. Just because someone doesn't believe in warming doesn't mean he doesn't care about the environment. While there are clear benefits to industrial activity that doesn't involve burning non renewable resources or releasing dirty stuff, this has become political simply because of carbon credits.
Click to expand...

Straw hat argument?
 
Putting in solar panels for electric generation or solar water heater is a smart decision for many communities but most will not truly be able to live "off the grid". Power storage for the long winter night is expensive.

I draw the line at a composting toilet and harvesting water from the air. I have a septic tank and well for that.

I will buy solar cells in the future, but it will probably only reduce my electrical footprint.
 
taiwanluthiers said:
Sorry, I meant straw man
Click to expand...

That makes more sense. Regarding the post about the straw man argument, the thread is not about global warming or carbon credits. Georgetown did not make its decision based on global warming or carbon credits. The decision was based on getting its best deal.
 
cwbullet said:
Putting in solar panels for electric generation or solar water heater is a smart decision for many communities but most will not truly be able to live "off the grid". Power storage for the long winter night is expensive.

I draw the line at a composting toilet and harvesting water from the air. I have a septic tank and well for that.

I will buy solar cells in the future, but it will probably only reduce my electrical footprint.
Click to expand...

Most people who put in solar panels at therir home do not go "off the grid." Instead of trying to put in enough capacity to cover all their electric power needs and also paying extra to put in batteries to save the excess daytime power to get through the night, they stay on the grid and use "net metering." Net metering means you only pay for power you draw from the grid, and you sell any excess power you generate back to your utility company. At some points in the day, your meter may run backward as you generate extra power for the grid, and at other times, it runs forward as you pull power from the grid. In a sense, your grid is your battery.

Most only put in enough capacity to eliminate the most expensive part of their electric bill. If your bill is based on tiers, with each tier over the baseline costing more, then you can save money by eliminating the most expensive tiers. If your utility charges more for peak usage times of day, you can save money by selling power to the utility during the peak times, which are usually the sunniest times of day, and buy power at night when the sun is not out and power is cheaper. Solar is not always cheaper than electricity sold at the baseline tier rate or the off-peak rate, but it is often cheaper than the higher tiers and the peak rates, so a small system can have a better ROI than a large system.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
Well, this is great! You are actually from the town we are talking about. What is your take on this decision? Do you think it is a good idea or bad? Do you think it is based mostly on economics or politics?
Click to expand...

I see any migration to renewable energy as a positive, and applaud the move. I doubt that a significant percentage of the actual electrical energy expended here in Georgetown will come from wind or solar, but the energy purchased will be expended somewhere at a net gain to the local utility, which is good.

This is a very pragmatic and conservative community, so I see this driven by the purchase economics and not some warm and fuzzy green agenda. It is worth noting that Travis and Williamson counties are a major hub for semiconductor design and process engineering development, which ties directly into the solar production part of this story. Additionally, TECO/Westinghouse, a major manufacturer of wind turbine systems, sits on the southern edge of Georgetown.

https://www.tecowestinghouse.com/wind.aspx

There is also the PR bump that this community is realizing right now, which can't be measured in dollars.

James
 
I know this may be controversial but I think all options for cheaper and plentiful energy sources must be a national priority. So, here goes.

If everyone in America would simply have at least one healthy hamster running its little ass off in one of those circular wire cages, that energy could be harnessed and turned into electricity. Now image dozens of these industrious little beasts in every home, working shoulder to shoulder in multiple cylinders of of these wire cages! Of course this enterprise will ultimately require federal funding, but that should be no problem if the sales pitch is presented correctly. All these critters need is food and water and their waste products can be recycled.

One small step for hamsters....one giant leap for energy independence! YES, We Can! :2:
 
James Duffy said:
I see any migration to renewable energy as a positive, and applaud the move. I doubt that a significant percentage of the actual electrical energy expended here in Georgetown will come from wind or solar, but the energy purchased will be expended somewhere at a net gain to the local utility, which is good.

This is a very pragmatic and conservative community, so I see this driven by the purchase economics and not some warm and fuzzy green agenda. It is worth noting that Travis and Williamson counties are a major hub for semiconductor design and process engineering development, which ties directly into the solar production part of this story. Additionally, TECO/Westinghouse, a major manufacturer of wind turbine systems, sits on the southern edge of Georgetown.

https://www.tecowestinghouse.com/wind.aspx

There is also the PR bump that this community is realizing right now, which can't be measured in dollars.

James
Click to expand...


Thanks for the insight! It's great to have the perspective of someone local to the story.
 
tmacklin said:
I know this may be controversial but I think all options for cheaper and plentiful energy sources must be a national priority. So, here goes.

If everyone in America would simply have at least one healthy hamster running its little ass off in one of those circular wire cages, that energy could be harnessed and turned into electricity. Now image dozens of these industrious little beasts in every home, working shoulder to shoulder in multiple cylinders of of these wire cages! Of course this enterprise will ultimately require federal funding, but that should be no problem if the sales pitch is presented correctly. All these critters need is food and water and their waste products can be recycled.

One small step for hamsters....one giant leap for energy independence! YES, We Can! :2:
Click to expand...


Instead of hamsters, just put pedals and cranks on everything. It'll help with the Obesity Epidemic. Want to watch The Walking Dead? Pedal the generator to power the TV. Want to update your Facebook status? Crank the handle on the side of your smartphone.

Flintstones style automotive drivetrains might be a good idea too. Basically you run everywhere, dragging a car with you.
 
Thorium reactors could very well be the answer as far as the “Nuclear” option for our energy needs. Smaller than the current crop of nuclear power plants and from what I’ve been able to ascertain from the info release a Thorium reactor cannot melt down.

Another piece of technology that’s been in the news recently was that the Japanese have developed what might be the technology that would allow for the construction of that old science fiction standard the orbital solar power satellite.

Apparently they have produced the means by which the electricity can be beamed down to Earth Based receptors without all of the problems currently associated with this concept.

Of course today’s far more pressing $64,000,000,000 question is; what’s going to happen to the state having 33 million people living in it when the water runs out in a year or so?
 
Instead of hamsters, just put pedals and cranks on everything. It'll help with the Obesity Epidemic. Want to watch The Walking Dead? Pedal the generator to power the TV. Want to update your Facebook status? Crank the handle on the side of your smartphone.
Click to expand...

Funny story sort of like that. The new boats on the Alcatraz tour route are hybrids, with windmills, solar panels, and a variety of other energy reducing features. They have a stationary bike hooked into the system as well, with a little display that shows how much power you've generated. At first, the units on the display were in gallons of diesel replaced. The operator's port engineer said he nearly killed himself getting to 0.01. After that, they changed the units!

I have a grid-tied solar array on my house, which covers about a third of my annual use. My "battery" is all the water behind Seattle City Light's dams. While it's not exactly the same thing, gas turbines are pretty good at spooling up and down as required to meet demand. Also, the more distributed the solar or wind is, the less of a spike or dip you see from clouds/gusts/whatever. Germany is running their grid at about 7% of their total power from solar, but up to 50% at some times. If the Germans can manage their grid to incorporate renewables, I don't see why we can't.

I know we're largely dependent on oil right now. Even with the shale oil revolution, there is a finite amount of oil in the ground, and the easy stuff is largely tapped. At some point as a planet we'll need to use oil just for the things that we have to (eg some plastics) and fuel will come from somewhere else.
 
boomtube-mk2 said:
Of course today’s far more pressing $64,000,000,000 question is; what’s going to happen to the state having 33 million people living in it when the water runs out in a year or so?
Click to expand...

That is a very serious issue, and what's going to happen is that all the agriculture in the state is going to collapse. It seems to me that the current "plan" is to hope and pray for rain. And when the rain doesn't come, which it won't, then the water is going to be cut from the only place it can be. Residential water use only accounts for 20% of the water used in the state. Agriculture uses 80%.

This issue is a bit off-topic, except for the fact that water scarcity played a part in Georgetown's decision too.
 
Every power generation system has cost and environmental issues. All of them. We haven't figured out how to make energy without some significant impact and cost. I doubt we ever will. I think it is best to have a mix of systems so that the loss of one doesn't crash the electrical grid.

Nuclear: Uranium has to be mined and that causes nasty pollution. Disposal of spent fuel is an issue as no one wants it. The facility itself is a terrorist target.

Coal: Coal has to be mined and that causes nasty pollution. Burning it releases some nasty chemicals and particles into the air.

Solar: The panels are made using rare earth elements and once again we have environmental mining issues. Disposal of the used panels will be an environmental issue. They only work in sunlight.

Wind: They kill birds, make noise and many people think they are ugly. There is a group in the town where I used to work that is vehemently opposed to wind turbines. There are probably environmental impacts to their production that I don't know about. They also only work when there is wind.
 

Similar threads

C
Hydrogen not as fuel
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
Peartree
Peartree
dr wogz
Hydro-electric power (and other non-fossil fuel generation methods) discussion
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
Funkworks
Funkworks
M
perchlorate in h20
Replies
2
Views
607
mkeene
M
Elapid
Fliskits Fireside Chat Transcript
Replies
4
Views
2K
jetra2
jetra2

Latest posts

Back
Top