Guest “Let’s go Mets!” by David Middleton
There are three things that I am somewhat embarrassed of:
- I am not a native Texan… I was born in Connecticut, but I got here as fast as I could.
- I am a life-long New York Jets fan… I watch a recording of Super Bowl III every Super Bowl Sunday.
- I am a life-long New York Mets fan.
One of my favorite books of all time is The Year the Mets Lost Last Place…
Date: 1969
After the Mets secured their World Series win in Game 5 on October 16, 1969, people wanted the story of that miraculous season as soon as possible. Paul Zimmerman and Dick Schaap would be the first among many to publish a comprehensive account, issuing their book on “the most amazing year in the history of baseball” only two days after the Mets won the World Series. How did they manage that? They documented the thrills of the season as they happened. By the time the Mets surprised the world with their upset of the Baltimore Orioles, Zimmerman and Schaap’s play-by-play prose was already in hand, ready for fans who wanted to learn about and relive one of baseball’s most inspiring triumphs.
TAGS:1960S • 1969 SEASON • DICK SCHAAP • PAUL ZIMMERM
Mets Virtual Vault
I was ten years old throughout most of 1969. The Jets won Super Bowl III in January, Neil Armstrong took that “giant leap for mankind” in July and the Amazing Mets went from perennial last, or next-to-last, place finishers to upsetting the Baltimore Orioles four games to one in the World Series. 1969 will always be one of my favorite years… So I guess I shouldn’t rag on renewables for crawling out of last place… But, I will anyway.
APRIL 26, 2022
Renewable generation surpassed nuclear in the U.S. electric power sector in 2021Electric power sector generation from renewable sources totaled 795 million megawatthours (MWh) in the United States during 2021, surpassing nuclear generation, which totaled 778 million MWh. The U.S. electric power sector does not include electricity generators in the industrial, commercial, or residential sectors, such as small-scale solar or wind or some combined-heat-and-power systems. Renewable generation includes electricity generated from wind, hydropower, solar, biomass, and geothermal sources.
Natural gas remained the most prevalent source of energy used in electricity generation in the United States, accounting for 1,474 million MWh in 2021. Although several U.S. coal-fired power plants retired in 2021, coal-fired electricity generation increased for the first time since 2014 and was the source of more U.S. electricity than either renewables or nuclear power. Total generation in the electric power sector increased slightly in 2021, but it remained less than its record-high year of 2018.
The increase in U.S. electric power sector renewable generation during 2021 came mainly from more wind and solar generation as a result of more wind turbines and utility-scale solar power plants coming online. Wind generation increased by 12% in 2021, and utility-scale solar generation increased by 28%. Hydroelectric generation decreased to its lowest level since 2015, mainly because of dry conditions in the western United States. Biomass and geothermal electricity generation remained relatively unchanged in 2021.
Nuclear-powered generation has remained relatively steady in the United States during the past decade because uprates at existing facilities have offset the retirement of several reactors. Only one reactor was retired in 2021: New York’s Indian Point Unit 3. Despite a slight increase in the capacity factor of the U.S. nuclear fleet in 2021, U.S. nuclear electricity generation fell to its lowest level since 2012.
Principal contributor: Syne Salem
Tags: generation, coal, electricity, natural gas, nuclear, renewables, wind, biomass, hydroelectric, solar
EIA
Renewables (wind + hydroelectricity + solar + biomass + geothermal) barely edged out nuclear power (795 to 778 million MWh) in 2021. This seems about as newsworthy as the New York Mets’ starting lineup hitting more homeruns in 1969 than Hank Aaron…
- Hank Aaron: 44 homeruns
- New York Mets starting lineup: 68 homeruns
Hank Aaron hit his 44 homeruns in just 547 at bats. The Mets starting lineup required 3,250 at bats to rack up their 68 homeruns… giving us another analogy: MWh of generation per MW of installed capacity. The most recent EIA numbers are for 2020.
- Nuclear Power: 96,501 MW
- Renewables (wind + hydroelectricity + solar + biomass + geothermal): 284,895 MW
Nuclear power plants generated 778 million MWh from about 96,500 MW of installed capacity. Renewables required about 286,000 MW to rack up 795 million MWh. Nuclear power plants delivered a 92% capacity factor, renewables took 2/3 of the year off, only delivering a 32% capacity factor. The numbers aren’t exact because I’m using 2021 generation and 2020 installed capacity… But they are “in the ballpark.”
Carrying on with odd segues…
32% of nameplate capacity is much more than the Europeans were recently obtaining from wind and solar.
“Surprised the world?” With Baseball? America perhaps, but not the world – it really isn’t that popular outside of the USA and maybe a handful of countries. On the other hand, I did use to play rounders as a child.
Renewables should be hitting the intermittency wall fairly soon.
The unreliable power generators cannot stand on their own without backup from traditional sources. Battery backup is not up to the challenge of continuous supply.
I don’t care how much power they generate. When I flip a switch, I want the lights to go on. I don’t want to only have my appliances work when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
These morons are going to turn the world into North Korea.
Nuclear always takes a hit on the capital costs which are high, in part due to unreasonable regulatory burdens from the linear-no threshold model of toxicity/injury. Any estimates out there on the capital costs for the current nuclear fleet versus the wind and solar facilities (ignoring government subsidies)?
Off topic I know, but I do miss Paul Zimmerman. He was a great writer, especially with his break down of football. He has a way getting into the details without overwhelming the reader with stats or technical jargon.
He end of the year review of broadcasters was also a great plus.
Add another factor in the equation. Inflation leading to a permanent step change in capacity additions will not be equal across the generation types. Wind power is facing much higher costs for each incremental addition onshore and offshore. Solar will take more share within renewables. All energy sector additions will carry higher financing costs and risk premiums. Governments, especially DoE, will continue to waste money with “pilot project mentality” while cheering on the nonplayers–Obama and Biden style.
1969 will always be one of my favorite years
_______________________________________
Got married to my wonderful wife in 1969.
Hmmm . . . the most recent EIA-published numbers that I find for 2021 (see https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php , run cursor to far right end of graph labeled “US electricity generation by major energy source, 1950-2021” to reveal numerical breakdown):
Renewables (wind + hydroelectricity + solar + biomass + geothermal): 826 million MWh
Nuclear Power: 778 million MWh
The same reference webpage presents a chart (attached) showing renewables at 20% of the total of 4.12 e^9 MWh (consistent with the EIA-stated 826 million MWh, but not with 795 million MWh) and showing nuclear at 19% of the same total (~consistent with the stated 778 MWh).
There seems to be a problem in the 795 million MWh number.
[note: MWH bolded above because EIA reports energy values in KWh]
the Democrats love to deceive on their climate scam by telling half-truths about renewable energy capabilities. that need for Democrats to continually deceive the public will never change. the only thing that must change is to remove Democrats as far away as possible for the political levers of power.
I suppose in the best of all possible worlds, we would have a national unified grid which would allow renewables produced anywhere in the US to be delivered to consumers anywhere in the US. That is a best-case scenario for renewables. One would think that someone has already figured out what that looks like, what the maximum potential renewables is, and what it would cost. Has anyone here seen such a study that wasn’t done by people wearing the extra-strength rose-colored glasses? I’m ignoring storage, which is prohibitively expensive for the foreseeable future.
David, thanks for reminding me about the 1969 World Series. At my high school on Long Island, we watched the World Series during gym class. Some even snuck in from study hall. One section of the basketball-court bleachers was rolled out, and a portable TV on a rolling stand with rabbit-ears antenna sat a few feet in front. The principal was front row center.
Regards,
Bob
It would be interesting to see the name plate of solar and wind against electric produced. I was wondering if the difference was constant? Also I guess solar would look like carbon dioxide with a annual rheum due to the seasons.
Dose anyone know where I can find this?
As they are closing nuclear plants and adding wind etc this should be near the start of a trend.
Depending on state hydro may not count as renewable. Some states are trying to remove dams so hydro may start going the way of nuclear.
How much energy did the renewables consume? Any (more or less) qualified guesses? After all, net and useful production is the interesting figure.
As a side note, windfarms in Europe were recenly paid to shut down generation due to unstable power grid. If that is something happening now and then, or often for that matter, those MWh creating instability would better not be produced nor included in total production.
@David – you should feel no shame about being born in Connecticut. As I remind my wife from there, one cannot control who your parents are, or where they choose to birth you.
Now, as to the other two, those are personal choices, on which I shall not offer a comment.
The Catch: 🙂
http://youtu.be/qGpqNnHkjNk
Hydro should not count – it’s reliable, low cost, flexible and just great. Probably the best source of electric energy. Countries with high capacity/potential are lucky.
This is the take home:
Hank Aaron hit his 44 homeruns in just 547 at bats. The Mets starting lineup required 3,250 at bats to rack up their 68 homeruns… giving us another analogy: MWh of generation per MW of installed capacity. The most recent EIA numbers are for 2020.
Nuclear power plants generated 778 million MWh from about 96,500 MW of installed capacity. Renewables required about 286,000 MW to rack up 795 million MWh. Nuclear power plants delivered a 92% capacity factor, renewables took 2/3 of the year off, only delivering a 32% capacity factor. The numbers aren’t exact because I’m using 2021 generation and 2020 installed capacity… But they are “in the ballpark
It is so stupid to state that renewables have overtaken nuclear. Using that logic one could say lawn mowers can overtake my pickup. My pickup has 300 horsepower and my lawnmower has 6 horsepower so lawnmowers can overtake pickups, you just need more of them. Yes, I suppose you could figure out a way for 50 lawnmowers to do the work of 1 pickup but why would you? This is so stupid!
I wrote this 3 days ago for the benefit of the greenies on my E- mail list and family.
Point out any errors.
A new perspective on the Green Revolution.
This was absolutely unbelievable, when I initially started checking these numbers comparing Gasoline energy content with wind turbine energy generation. Turns out America’s daily consumption of Gasoline contains 12,000 times more energy than all the wind turbine and solar power generating capacity in America Today. When we consider the efficiency of internal combustion engines at 20%, gasoline still provides 2,400 times more energy!
How likely will the Green energy advocates achieve their Zero carbon goal by the year 2050.
The probability appears to be less than Zero. Less than Zero means more rather than less fossil fuel use
A good analogy would be walking the world to find its end.
America’s average daily use of Gasoline this past week was 8.7 million barrels per day. 8.7e+6 or mega barrels
8.7e+6 * 42 = 465 million gallons 465e+6 per day.
There are 124 thousand Btu’s per gallon of gas.
124e+3 * 465e+6 = 5.766e+13 Btu’s
1 Btu equals .293 watt hours
.293 * 5.766e+13 = 1.689e+13 watt hours for 24 hours
1.689e +13 / 24 = 704e +12 watt hours per hour or 704 Tera watt hours per hour. Tera watts are in trillions.
So our daily use of Gasoline is equal to the energy that could be generated continuously daily at 704 trillion watts.
America needs to generate 704 Tera watts of power continuously each hour to produce 704 Tera watt hours per hour.
https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/gasoline.php See last chart for Daily demand at the bottom of the link.
Now let us compare the energy produced hourly by Gasoline versus that produced by wind and solar using data
from the Governments Energy Information Agency. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_1_01_a
Sum of 1st 2nd 3rd columns for the rolling 12 months ending in January 2022 at the bottom of the link.
America generated 504 Tera watts hours of renewable energy using wind and solar per the EIA. 504,465e +9 Giga
watt hours during the previous 12 months ending on January 31 2022. A Giga watt hour is 1 billion watt hours
Consider 504 Tera watt hours were generated over a period of 1 year, not one day.
365 * 24 hours = 8760 hours; 504,465e +9 / 8,760 = 57,587 Mega watt hours or 57.6 Giga watt hours
704e +12 / 57.6e +9 =12,222 So the average gas America uses each hour contains 12,200 times more energy than
the average wind and solar energy generated each hour in America.
The energy in 1 hour of America’s gasoline use is 12,200 times greater than the average wind and solar energy produced in 1 hour in America. Of course a gasoline automobile engine is only about 20 % efficient the other 80 %
is wasted as heat. Some waste heat is used in the winter for heating. So considering the efficiency of the auto we can reduce the 12,200 to 2400. All gasoline is not used in autos but 99.x % is used in internal combustion engines.
As of the end of January 2022 America had installed 70,800 wind turbines; and as of the end of February 2022 America’s wind turbines had generated 398,601 Giga watt hours of energy. So 398,601e +9 / 8690 hours = 45.5 Giga watts hours of energy per hour. That would be 45.5e +9 / 70,800 wind turbines = 643e +3. So the average wind turbine generated 643 Kilo watt hours per wind turbine per hour. I couldn’t find the average face plate value for America’s wind turbines; with the efficiency of wind turbines I suspect it is between 1.5 and 2 mega watts.
We have not even considered the energy provided by road diesel, heating oil, and propane, and Natural Gas
One barrel of crude contains 1,700 kilo watt hours of energy. We use more than 19 million barrels per day.
19e +6 * 1,700e +3 = 1.05e +15 or 1 Peta watt hour. 1 quadrillion watt hours.
Can you imagine 1e +15 / 643e +3 = 1.555 billion 643 kilo watt wind turbines with face plate values of about 2.5 mega watts.; it could take the entire population of the world to build and maintain them.
DOING THIS AND THAT, BY SUCH AND SUCH DATE, OR THE WORLD WILL BE DOOMED?
Let us get real
New England is TOO small to affect anything regarding the climate, etc.
The BEST thing for New Englanders is ENERGY EFFICIENCY and MUCH SMALLER STATE GOVERNMENTS
Here is an example:
Germany, population about 84 million, reduced its fossil fuel primary energy from 84% to 76% of total primary energy, after spending at least $500 billion on its ENERGIEWENDE for over 20 years. That is the official number. The real number is at least $700 billion.
The $700 billion likely was borrowed, so the interest on it would be about $30 billion per year, which is accounted for somewhere else, per government bookkeeping rules
That is an 8% of FF reduction for $700 billion. Or that is $700 billion/84 million people = $8,333/per person per 20 years, or $400/person/y, or $1,600 per family of 4, per year.
Remember, a lot of this includes low-hanging fruits, such as changing light bulbs. It gets more difficult to make each ADDITIONAL percent reduction!!! Something they do not tell you about in Sunday School.
By this time the EARLY solar and wind systems are being REPLACED with new ones, and on and on it goes. Where do you landfill all THAT junk?
This dismal example was accomplished by a rich, technologically advanced country, which most European countries, and New England, and the rest of the world, could not imitate
Germany ruined its countryside with 500 to 600 ft tall wind turbines and solar systems all over Germany (to socially and “equitably” spread the blight), and deforested millions of acres for generating electricity from burning trees.
Germany increased its household electricity rates by more than 250% over these 20 years
Germany and Denmark, another wind maven, have the highest household electricity rates in Europe, over 30 EUROCENT/kWh
In Germany, and the rest of Europe, a major increase in household and commercial/industrial electricity rates is in process, due to:
1) Increased inflation rates, increased interest rates, and increased energy and materials prices
2) The US using NATO to help Ukraine fight and weaken Russia for the next few years; a mini-version of WW-III
For Germany, and the rest of Europe, fighting climate change will be at the bottom of the list, despite Brussels declarations to do this and that, by such and such date.
ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS TO NEW REALITIES, SUCH AS THE END OF PETRODOLLARS, AND TYING THE VALUE OF CURRENCIES, NOT TO CENTRAL BANK MONEY PRESSES, BUT TO NATURAL RESOURCES, WILL BE A GUT-WRENCHING PROCESS FOR THE US AND EU FOR YEARS.
I do think that hydroelectricity, which has been around for decades, should be distinguished from the new, unreliable renewables like solar and wind. Water stored in a dammed lake is a very predictable, reliable source of power.
The Cubbies should have been the team, if Durocher hadn’t used Phil Regan as a reliever down the stretch!
An argument can be made that nuclear has not been surpassed, yet. Conventional power stations subtract station service power from gross generation to calculate net generation delivered to the grid. Wind projects, on the other hand, report gross generation as delivered. Station service power; the reliable 24/7 power needed to support critical systems, lighting, lube oil circulation and heating, de-icing, etc., is provided from the local electricity provider and not subtracted from the gross output. This maximizes the production tax credit. Another dirty little secret of the wind industry; just one of many.
Wait – I thought that hydroelectric power couldn’t be counted as renewable energy, or sustainable energy, or whatever. Who changed the rules?