Off Shore Wind

[Bret Cahill]

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Bret Cahill
http://youtu.be/YC8RmYNV_DI

Onshore wind:

German spoken. Click the button for subtitles. A rough translation is
available in options.

[Bret Cahill]

Listen to what he says 2:36 into the video:

"New developments and new technologies always lead to new challenges."

[JTEM is right]

Post by Bret Cahill
"New developments and new technologies always lead to new challenges."

As is the case with the bioengineered miniature
dragons! You've got to expect setbacks... some
setbacks. This is new, breakthrough technology,
using bioengineered mini dragons to power our
generators and heat our homes. DENIERS just don't
understand this.








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/173891250906

[Wally W.]

Post by Bret Cahill
http://youtu.be/2oAzrBORRN0
"New developments and new technologies always lead to new challenges."

Greenies want to put these shard-sprayers off shore.

Won't someone *please* think of the dolphins?!

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Bret Cahill
http://youtu.be/2oAzrBORRN0
"New developments and new technologies always lead to new challenges."

The biggest challenge of all: eliminating the need for 8MW of
conventional generation backing every 8MW of wind.

Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

[Unum]

Post by Bret Cahill
http://youtu.be/2oAzrBORRN0
"New developments and new technologies always lead to new challenges."

The biggest challenge of all: eliminating the need for 8MW of conventional
generation backing every 8MW of wind.
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No cite means chumpsky is lying as usual.

[Bret Cahill]

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill
http://youtu.be/2oAzrBORRN0
"New developments and new technologies always lead to new challenges."

The biggest challenge of all: eliminating the need for 8MW of
conventional generation backing every 8MW of wind.
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No spreadsheet = no argument

“Solar and wind basically out-compete coal-fired power now even without any public policy to make them do that,” he added. “There are way more people now who are employed in solar than there are in coal.”

https://thinkprogress.org/economist-paul-krugman-says-coal-is-not-coming-back-e593f9f455d9/?hl=1&noRedirect=1

[Unum]

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill
http://youtu.be/2oAzrBORRN0
"New developments and new technologies always lead to new challenges."

The biggest challenge of all: eliminating the need for 8MW of
conventional generation backing every 8MW of wind.
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No spreadsheet = no argument

It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual evidence
points in the opposite direction.

Post by Bret Cahill
“Solar and wind basically out-compete coal-fired power now even without any public policy to make them do that,” he added. “There are way more people now who are employed in solar than there are in coal.”
https://thinkprogress.org/economist-paul-krugman-says-coal-is-not-coming-back-e593f9f455d9/?hl=1&noRedirect=1

Even the NG peaker plants, which typically run less than 300 hours
per year and cost about $250 million each, are at risk of being
replaced by cheaper and faster batteries.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum

Post by Bret Cahill
No spreadsheet = no argument

It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual
evidence points in the opposite direction.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148104004021
Instantaneous wind energy penetration in isolated electricity grids:
concepts and review
Author Daniel Weisser Raquel S.Garcia
Extracts:
"The connection of wind turbines to an electricity grid can
potentially affect supply reliability and power quality, due to
the unpredictable fluctuations in wind power output."

"Research institutes and regulating bodies base their
recommendations on the track record of wind turbine installations till
present. In modern European grids, for instance, numerous assessments
have shown that no technical problems are likely to occur by
allowing wind capacities up to an instantaneous penetration of 10–20%
[3,15]."

"Similarly, Ireland’s Electricity Supply Board (ESB) suggested that wind
power levels should be limited to 30% of instantaneous load during
daytime, with possibly a higher contribution at nights [14]. At the end
of 2003, the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) of Ireland
reacted to a request from the ESB. It spelled out a moratorium
on additional grid connected wind turbines in order to prevent possible
problems regarding the reliability of power quality and supply until the
effect of further intermittent power technologies on the system was
better understood [18,19]."

[Unum]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum

Post by Bret Cahill
No spreadsheet = no argument

It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual
evidence points in the opposite direction.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148104004021
concepts and review
Author Daniel Weisser Raquel S.Garcia
"The connection of wind turbines to an electricity grid can
potentially affect supply reliability and power quality, due to
the unpredictable fluctuations in wind power output."
"Research institutes and regulating bodies base their
recommendations on the track record of wind turbine installations till
present. In modern European grids, for instance, numerous assessments
have shown that no technical problems are likely to occur by
allowing wind capacities up to an instantaneous penetration of 10–20%
[3,15]."
"Similarly, Ireland’s Electricity Supply Board (ESB) suggested that wind
power levels should be limited to 30% of instantaneous load during
daytime, with possibly a higher contribution at nights [14]. At the end
of 2003, the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) of Ireland
reacted to a request from the ESB. It spelled out a moratorium
on additional grid connected wind turbines in order to prevent possible
problems regarding the reliability of power quality and supply until the
effect of further intermittent power technologies on the system was
better understood [18,19]."

So, no problem whatsoever. Regardless of what might have been
said in 2003, lol.

[JTEM is right]

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin
"Research institutes and regulating bodies base their
recommendations on the track record of wind turbine installations till
present. In modern European grids, for instance, numerous assessments
have shown that no technical problems are likely to occur by
allowing wind capacities up to an instantaneous penetration of 10–20%

So, no problem whatsoever. Regardless of what might have been
said in 2003, lol.

So long as 80 to 90% of all your power comes from
fuels.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/150631579357

[Unum]

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin
"Research institutes and regulating bodies base their
recommendations on the track record of wind turbine installations till
present. In modern European grids, for instance, numerous assessments
have shown that no technical problems are likely to occur by
allowing wind capacities up to an instantaneous penetration of 10–20%

So, no problem whatsoever. Regardless of what might have been
said in 2003, lol.

So long as 80 to 90% of all your power comes from
fuels.

Many states in the USA get above 20% renewable electricity and several
countries in Europe get more than 40%, so all you've got is a big fat yap.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Unum

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin
"Research institutes and regulating bodies base their
recommendations on the track record of wind turbine installations till
present. In modern European grids, for instance, numerous assessments
have shown that no technical problems are likely to occur by
allowing wind capacities up to an instantaneous penetration of 10-20%

So, no problem whatsoever. Regardless of what might have been
said in 2003, lol.

So long as 80 to 90% of all your power comes from
fuels.

Many states in the USA get above 20% renewable electricity and several
countries in Europe get more than 40%, so all you've got is a big fat yap.

The intern needs to do a lot more reading.

[JTEM is right]

Post by Unum
Many states in the USA get above 20% renewable electricity

No, not reliably.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/150631579357

[Unum]

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum
Many states in the USA get above 20% renewable electricity

No, not reliably.

You are always welcome to post anything at all that corroborates your
many incredibly stupid remarks here.

[JTEM is right]

Post by Unum
You are always welcome to post anything at all that corroborates your
many incredibly stupid remarks here.

You have been provided cite after cite after cite
demonstrating how "alternatives" in Australia have
resulted in ridiculously high prices, because of
their spottiness. The owners of Telsa's "Big Battery"
have publicly bragged about how much money they have
made from that unreliability.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/146872030768

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum
You are always welcome to post anything at all that corroborates your
many incredibly stupid remarks here.

You have been provided cite after cite after cite demonstrating how
"alternatives" in Australia have resulted in ridiculously high prices,
because of their spottiness. The owners of Telsa's "Big Battery"
have publicly bragged about how much money they have made from that
unreliability.

Australia's big battery is politically useful because it prevents
electricity to reach too often the $14.000/MWh maximum auction threshold.
But it is of no use for periods longer than a few minutes which cannot be
managed without the help of those damned fossil fuel (natural gas, coal)
generators.

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum
You are always welcome to post anything at all that corroborates your
many incredibly stupid remarks here.

You have been provided cite after cite after cite demonstrating how
"alternatives" in Australia have resulted in ridiculously high prices,
because of their spottiness. The owners of Telsa's "Big Battery"
have publicly bragged about how much money they have made from that
unreliability.

Australia's big battery is politically useful because it prevents
electricity to reach too often the $14.000/MWh maximum auction threshold.
But it is of no use for periods longer than a few minutes which cannot be
managed without the help of those damned fossil fuel (natural gas, coal)
generators.

Any grid can benefit from having a big smoothing capacitor added to it,
which is what the battery basically functions as.

The problem is the flakiness of wind and solar is what necessitated it.

You don't get to declare victory when you caused the problem in the
first place.

And the funny part is they STILL need the same amount of coal and gas
capacity on standby.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum
Many states in the USA get above 20% renewable electricity

No, not reliably.

Those states don't have independent grids. It helps a lot.
Hawaii, which is isolated relies heavily on petroleum for its energy
needs. In year 2012, Hawaii relied on oil for 71% of its electricity
generation. Coal provided 15%, wind 4%, hydro 1% and solar 0.something%.

Hawaii is well below the critical threshold determined by the 2006
publication. It explains why its electrical grid can survive without
major disruptions.

[JTEM is right]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum
Many states in the USA get above 20% renewable electricity

No, not reliably.

Those states don't have independent grids.

Vermont, for example, is plugged into the rest
of the New England states & Canada, so it can
overcome the spottiness of it's "Alternatives"
by drawing power from out of state.

The alternatives aren't reliable. They just seem
that way because fossil fuels rescue them all the
time.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142338124990

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum
Many states in the USA get above 20% renewable electricity

No, not reliably.

Those states don't have independent grids.

Vermont, for example, is plugged into the rest
of the New England states & Canada, so it can
overcome the spottiness of it's "Alternatives"
by drawing power from out of state.
The alternatives aren't reliable. They just seem
that way because fossil fuels rescue them all the
time.

Same in California and South Australia, and most of the others.

They are dependent on importing cheap coal, gas, hydro and nuke power
from out of state, to balance the semi-random variability of the green
juice.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin
"Research institutes and regulating bodies base their
recommendations on the track record of wind turbine installations
till present. In modern European grids, for instance, numerous
assessments have shown that no technical problems are likely
to occur by allowing wind capacities up to an instantaneous
penetration of 10–20%

So, no problem whatsoever. Regardless of what might have been said in
2003, lol.

So long as 80 to 90% of all your power comes from fuels.

Many states in the USA get above 20% renewable electricity and several
countries in Europe get more than 40%, so all you've got is a big fat yap.

Some countries are able to produce more intermittent non dispatchable
electricity as far as they are not isolated. There is a ongoing
experiment on the island of El Hierro. Their published aim was to get
100% renewable by a combination of wind and pumped hydro. They
occasionally reach quite high renewable ratio for short periods (hours)
at the expense of the stability of their grid and thanks to their 100%
diesel backup. But I imagine that their critical infrastructures, their
hospital for example, have good diesel backup generators too.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No spreadsheet = no argument

It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual
evidence points in the opposite direction.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002544
"Exploring the impact on cost and electricity production of high
penetration levels of intermittent electricity in OECD Europe and the
USA, results for wind energy"
Cite:
"With increasing penetration levels the cost reduction of wind
electricity caused by upscaling and technological learning is
counteracted by the cost increase due to (1) the need for additional back-
up capacity, (2) the need to generate wind electricity at less favourable
sites, and (3) discarded wind electricity because of supply–demand
mismatch. This occurs after about 20% wind electricity production as
percentage of current electricity production."

"At present the solar PV capacity connected to grids world-wide is small,
maybe 0.5 or 1 GW in total. For wind turbines, this figure is over 30 GW.
Wind electricity already has significant shares in the electricity supply
in some countries, e.g., about 17% in Denmark[5], or in parts of
countries, e.g., 25% in Schleswig–Holstein[6]. Such highpenetrations
require technical adaptations such as additional back-up capacity or
transmission capacity [7]. If wind and solar PV would penetrate at the
levels simulated in some future energy scenarios, such as RIGES[8], FFES
[9] and SRES[10], significant adaptations to the planning and operational
strategy of the electricity system will be needed. The most important
ones include the need for spinning reserve capacity, back-up capacity
(especially load-following or storage capacity) and transmission
capacity. These influence the overall production costs of electricity
from intermittent sources. They are also important for the
estimation of the CO2 abatement costs for wind and solar PV technologies."

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No spreadsheet = no argument

It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual
evidence points in the opposite direction.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002544
"Exploring the impact on cost and electricity production of high
penetration levels of intermittent electricity in OECD Europe and the
USA, results for wind energy"
"With increasing penetration levels the cost reduction of wind
electricity caused by upscaling and technological learning is
counteracted by the cost increase due to (1) the need for additional back-
up capacity, (2) the need to generate wind electricity at less favourable
sites, and (3) discarded wind electricity because of supply–demand
mismatch. This occurs after about 20% wind electricity production as
percentage of current electricity production."
"At present the solar PV capacity connected to grids world-wide is small,
maybe 0.5 or 1 GW in total. For wind turbines, this figure is over 30 GW.
Wind electricity already has significant shares in the electricity supply
in some countries, e.g., about 17% in Denmark[5], or in parts of
countries, e.g., 25% in Schleswig–Holstein[6]. Such highpenetrations
require technical adaptations such as additional back-up capacity or
transmission capacity [7]. If wind and solar PV would penetrate at the
levels simulated in some future energy scenarios, such as RIGES[8], FFES
[9] and SRES[10], significant adaptations to the planning and operational
strategy of the electricity system will be needed. The most important
ones include the need for spinning reserve capacity, back-up capacity
(especially load-following or storage capacity) and transmission
capacity. These influence the overall production costs of electricity
from intermittent sources. They are also important for the
estimation of the CO2 abatement costs for wind and solar PV technologies."

Pretty much the general conclusion. Any savings in generation cost is
eaten up and then some, by all the extra support costs required to make
it function.

Wind and solar advocates can't seem to come to grips with the truth, due
to their motivated denial.

[Unum]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No spreadsheet = no argument

It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual
evidence points in the opposite direction.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002544

An article from 2006, hilarious!

Post by Paul Aubrin
"Exploring the impact on cost and electricity production of high
penetration levels of intermittent electricity in OECD Europe and the
USA, results for wind energy"
"With increasing penetration levels the cost reduction of wind
electricity caused by upscaling and technological learning is
counteracted by the cost increase due to (1) the need for additional back-
up capacity, (2) the need to generate wind electricity at less favourable
sites, and (3) discarded wind electricity because of supply–demand
mismatch. This occurs after about 20% wind electricity production as
percentage of current electricity production."
"At present the solar PV capacity connected to grids world-wide is small,
maybe 0.5 or 1 GW in total. For wind turbines, this figure is over 30 GW.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-solar-capacity-set-to-surpass-global-nuclear-capacity

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are 391.5 gigawatts of
nuclear plants operating around the world. When the year closes out, there
will be roughly 390 gigawatts of solar PV plants spread across the globe

Pretty much the general conclusion.  Any savings in generation cost is eaten
up and then some, by all the extra support costs required to make it function.

That elderly article said no such thing. Why did chumpsky lie?

Wind and solar advocates can't seem to come to grips with the truth, due to
their motivated denial.

chumpsky makes stuff up and posts lies on the internet.

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No spreadsheet = no argument

It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual
evidence points in the opposite direction.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002544

An article from 2006, hilarious!

Post by Paul Aubrin
"Exploring the impact on cost and electricity production of high
penetration levels of intermittent electricity in OECD Europe and the
USA, results for wind energy"
"With increasing penetration levels the cost reduction of wind
electricity caused by upscaling and technological learning is
counteracted by the cost increase due to (1) the need for additional back-
up capacity, (2) the need to generate wind electricity at less favourable
sites, and (3) discarded wind electricity because of supply–demand
mismatch. This occurs after about 20% wind electricity production as
percentage of current electricity production."
"At present the solar PV capacity connected to grids world-wide is small,
maybe 0.5 or 1 GW in total. For wind turbines, this figure is over 30 GW.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-solar-capacity-set-to-surpass-global-nuclear-capacity
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are 391.5 gigawatts of
nuclear plants operating around the world. When the year closes out, there
will be roughly 390 gigawatts of solar PV plants spread across the globe

Pretty much the general conclusion.  Any savings in generation cost is
eaten up and then some, by all the extra support costs required to
make it function.

That elderly article said no such thing. Why did chumpsky lie?

Wind and solar advocates can't seem to come to grips with the truth,
due to their motivated denial.

chumpsky makes stuff up and posts lies on the internet.

This is a bit newer... lol!

Loading Image...

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum
An article from 2006, hilarious!

It was that year that makes it interesting. The article correctly
predicted the threshold at which problems induced by wind energy non
despatchability start to appear. Some countries passed the threshold and
stepped into problems (when circumstances prevented their neighbours to
rescue them).

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin
"Exploring the impact on cost and electricity production of high
penetration levels of intermittent electricity in OECD Europe and the
USA, results for wind energy"
"With increasing penetration levels the cost reduction of wind
electricity caused by upscaling and technological learning is
counteracted by the cost increase due to (1) the need for additional back-
up capacity, (2) the need to generate wind electricity at less
favourable sites, and (3) discarded wind electricity because of
supply–demand mismatch. This occurs after about 20% wind electricity
production as percentage of current electricity production."
"At present the solar PV capacity connected to grids world-wide is small,
maybe 0.5 or 1 GW in total. For wind turbines, this figure is over 30 GW.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-solar-capacity-set-

to-surpass-global-nuclear-capacity

Post by Unum
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are 391.5 gigawatts of
nuclear plants operating around the world. When the year closes out,
there will be roughly 390 gigawatts of solar PV plants spread across the
globe

You are correct by stating those numbers as capacities. The difference is
that 390GW of nuclear capacity produce 8-10 times more than 390 of solar
PV. More, the nuclear production is 99% of the time delivered on demand,
at the right time when solar produces only 10-12% of the time when it is
needed. Now an objection based on solar PV capacities is a bit specious
in a thread dedicated to offshore wind.

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Unum

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill
http://youtu.be/2oAzrBORRN0
"New developments and new technologies always lead to new challenges."

The biggest challenge of all: eliminating the need for 8MW of
conventional generation backing every 8MW of wind.
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No spreadsheet = no argument

It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual evidence
points in the opposite direction.

Like this evidence?

http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png

[Bret Cahill]

Post by Chom Noamsky
Like this evidence?
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png

Solar PV costs dropped by a factor of 5 in one year.

A 3 year old article is a joke in today's hyper active technology market.

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Like this evidence?
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png

Solar PV costs dropped by a factor of 5 in one year.
A 3 year old article is a joke in today's hyper active technology market.

Solar PV could be free and it would still cost more.

Dat cuz it isn't the bulk cost of production that is the problem, it's
the additional costs of supporting intermittent generation on the grid
that is the problem.

Zero fuel costs, but higher capital and operating costs nullify any
savings and then some.

Dat why cheap wind and solar ends up costing more at the wall socket.

[Bret Cahill]

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Like this evidence?
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png

Solar PV costs dropped by a factor of 5 in one year.

Supposing PV had a negative cost.

What would the negative cost be to break even?

<CIA>

Why don't you know?

<CIA>

Because DAGNN (deniers ain't got no numbers).

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill
A 3 year old article is a joke in today's hyper active technology market.

Solar PV could be free and it would still cost more.
Dat cuz it isn't the bulk cost of production that is the problem, it's
the additional costs of supporting intermittent generation on the grid
that is the problem.

Sounds like the Stalinist utility model ain't got no future.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Like this evidence?
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png

Solar PV costs dropped by a factor of 5 in one year.

Supposing PV had a negative cost.
What would the negative cost be to break even?
<CIA>
Why don't you know?
<CIA>
Because DAGNN (deniers ain't got no numbers).

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill
A 3 year old article is a joke in today's hyper active technology market.

Solar PV could be free and it would still cost more.
Dat cuz it isn't the bulk cost of production that is the problem, it's
the additional costs of supporting intermittent generation on the grid
that is the problem.

Sounds like the Stalinist utility model ain't got no future.

All I kin says -- Thank G*d hillbillies don't get to implement anything in
the real world; it wood bee a reel mess.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Like this evidence?
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/

europeelectricprice.png

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Bret Cahill
Solar PV costs dropped by a factor of 5 in one year.

Supposing PV had a negative cost.

PV cannot have negative costs. But, sometimes, it actually leads to
negative retail prices: when its production is not needed, it is actually
a waste and solar producers must pay to get rid of it. By chance, they
can still pocket some subsidies and still break even at the expense of
the tax payer. It will last until subsidised renewable electricity ends
destroying reliable, on-demand, production.

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky
Like this evidence?
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png

Solar PV costs dropped by a factor of 5 in one year.

Supposing PV had a negative cost.
What would the negative cost be to break even?
<CIA>
Why don't you know?
<CIA>
Because DAGNN (deniers ain't got no numbers).

Argumentum absurdum.

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill
A 3 year old article is a joke in today's hyper active technology market.

Solar PV could be free and it would still cost more.
Dat cuz it isn't the bulk cost of production that is the problem, it's
the additional costs of supporting intermittent generation on the grid
that is the problem.

Sounds like the Stalinist utility model ain't got no future.

Reliable cheap power is now "Stalinist".

[JTEM is right]

Post by Unum
It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual evidence
points in the opposite direction.

Oil demand grew 40% in just eight years. Using
all your education & math skills, explain to us,
in detail, how much wind & solar you need to
build just to replace that 40%, and tell us how
much it's all going to cost.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/150631579357

[Unum]

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum
It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual evidence
points in the opposite direction.

Oil demand grew 40% in just eight years. Using
all your education & math skills, explain to us,
in detail, how much wind & solar you need to
build just to replace that 40%, and tell us how
much it's all going to cost.

Oil demand has fallen in the past 8 years in the USA and Europe. In the
USA this was due to declining vehicle miles traveled and improved fuel
economy. The impending wave of EV's scheduled for deployment worldwide
will reverse global demand as prices fall below parity with ICE vehicles
and the smog-makers are banned.

So there ya go, fruitcake. Relax!

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Unum

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum
It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual evidence
points in the opposite direction.

Oil demand grew 40% in just eight years. Using
all your education & math skills, explain to us,
in detail, how much wind & solar you need to
build just to replace that 40%, and tell us how
much it's all going to cost.

Oil demand has fallen in the past 8 years in the USA and Europe. In the
USA this was due to declining vehicle miles traveled and improved fuel
economy. The impending wave of EV's scheduled for deployment worldwide
will reverse global demand as prices fall below parity with ICE vehicles
and the smog-makers are banned.
So there ya go, fruitcake. Relax!

Stop drinking the bong water.

***

The world will soon be burning 100 million barrels of oil per day

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/what-decarbonization-the-world-will-soon-be-burning-100-million-barrels-of-oil-per-day

[Unum]

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Unum

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum
It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual evidence
points in the opposite direction.

Oil demand grew 40% in just eight years. Using
all your education & math skills, explain to us,
in detail, how much wind & solar you need to
build just to replace that 40%, and tell us how
much it's all going to cost.

Oil demand has fallen in the past 8 years in the USA and Europe. In the
USA this was due to declining vehicle miles traveled and improved fuel
economy. The impending wave of EV's scheduled for deployment worldwide
will reverse global demand as prices fall below parity with ICE vehicles
and the smog-makers are banned.
So there ya go, fruitcake. Relax!

Stop drinking the bong water.
***
The world will soon be burning 100 million barrels of oil per day
http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/what-decarbonization-the-world-will-soon-be-burning-100-million-barrels-of-oil-per-day

Yawn, still got yer head up yer ass? Oil is a transportation fuel and EV's
plus vehicle automation will dry most of that crap up within the next 10
years.

[Chom Noamsky]

Post by Unum

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Unum

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Unum
It must be hard to keep singing the same old tune when all the actual evidence
points in the opposite direction.

Oil demand grew 40% in just eight years. Using
all your education & math skills, explain to us,
in detail, how much wind & solar you need to
build just to replace that 40%, and tell us how
much it's all going to cost.

Oil demand has fallen in the past 8 years in the USA and Europe. In the
USA this was due to declining vehicle miles traveled and improved fuel
economy. The impending wave of EV's scheduled for deployment worldwide
will reverse global demand as prices fall below parity with ICE vehicles
and the smog-makers are banned.
So there ya go, fruitcake. Relax!

Stop drinking the bong water.
***
The world will soon be burning 100 million barrels of oil per day
http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/what-decarbonization-the-world-will-soon-be-burning-100-million-barrels-of-oil-per-day

Yawn, still got yer head up yer ass? Oil is a transportation fuel and EV's
plus vehicle automation will dry most of that crap up within the next 10
years.

"yip yip yip"

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Unum

Post by Chom Noamsky
Stop drinking the bong water.
***
The world will soon be burning 100 million barrels of oil per day
http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/what-

decarbonization-the-world-will-soon-be-burning-100-million-barrels-of-oil-
per-day

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Unum
Yawn, still got yer head up yer ass? Oil is a transportation fuel and
EV's plus vehicle automation will dry most of that crap up within the
next 10 years.

"yip yip yip"

Unum is very sure of what he predicts. His predictions (10 years, he is
quite bold) are even more reliable than those of climate models.

[JTEM is right]

Remember the Titanic: Even as the ship was sinking,
the stern was RISING OUT OF THE WATER.

Post by Unum
Oil demand has fallen in the past 8 years in the USA and Europe.

So what? It's irrelevant!

How does the CO2 know that it's coming from China instead
of the U.S. or Europe, and why do you think it matters?

Fossil fuel use is rising. All our conservation is doing
is costing us a lot of money & saving China a mountain of
cash & jobs.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/150631579357

[Unum]

Post by JTEM is right
Remember the Titanic: Even as the ship was sinking,
the stern was RISING OUT OF THE WATER.

Post by Unum
Oil demand has fallen in the past 8 years in the USA and Europe.

So what? It's irrelevant!

Well, it shows that the crap you snipped out of the thread in
shame was utter bullshit.

[JTEM is right]

Post by Unum
Well, it shows that

The source of the CO2 never mattered to your
"Global Warming" myth. Fossil fuel use is
rising. Oil consumption is rising. All our
conservation in the west isn't saving any
CO2 at all. Everything that we don't burn is
burned in Asia.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/146872030768

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum
Well, it shows that

The source of the CO2 never mattered to your "Global Warming" myth.
Fossil fuel use is rising. Oil consumption is rising. All our
conservation in the west isn't saving any CO2 at all. Everything that we
don't burn is burned in Asia.

That truth is what Unum wants by no mean to get too much publicised.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Chom Noamsky

Post by Bret Cahill
http://youtu.be/2oAzrBORRN0
"New developments and new technologies always lead to new
challenges."

The biggest challenge of all: eliminating the need for 8MW of
conventional generation backing every 8MW of wind.
Bulk wind power is cheap, it's the cost of supporting it that makes it
uncompetitive at the delivery end.

No spreadsheet = no argument
“Solar and wind basically out-compete coal-fired power now even without
any public policy to make them do that,” he added. “There are way more
people now who are employed in solar than there are in coal.”
https://thinkprogress.org/economist-paul-krugman-says-coal-is-not-

coming-back-e593f9f455d9/?hl=1&noRedirect=1

Excess capacity of wind or solar destabilise a power grid.
The reasons why have been detailed many times.
One of those reasons is explained here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-24/aemc-says-australias-power-system-weakened-by-wind-solar/8381356

Another good explanation can be read here:

https://www.opengovasia.com/articles/australian-renewable-energy-agency-looking-to-improve-short-term-wind-and-solar-forecasting

[JTEM is right]

Post by Paul Aubrin
Excess capacity of wind or solar destabilise a power grid.
The reasons why have been detailed many times.

The reason is simple: You can not store electricity.

There is no such technology.

Even batteries CONVERT the electricity and then produce
(a slightly smaller amount) later. They can't store it.

There's lots of schemes for "Storing" electricity i.e.
converting it into something that can be used to
produce power in the future.

Pumping water uphill or into tanks, so it can be
released later to drive generators, is one scheme.

Flywheels are another scheme.

You can lift pendulums. Super heat an insulated
core. Use it to compress air which, released later,
can power machinery. Or, go the other way and use
it to pump out a vacuum, which can later power
machinery.

Probably the best "Solution" is to use it to
separate hydrogen out of water, which would later
be burned to fuel electrical generators...

All these schemes store less energy than was produced,
and return less energy than was stored.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/150631579357

[Paul Aubrin]

Probably the best "Solution" is to use it to separate hydrogen out of
water, which would later be burned to fuel electrical generators...
All these schemes store less energy than was produced, and return less
energy than was stored.

You are right. But except pumped hydro, which is not so easy to develop,
all other schemes are technically of limited use. The production of
hydrogen from water is very wasteful. And the density of energy of
hydrogen is low. Synthetic hydrocarbons stock much more power in a
smaller volume.