Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
«1

Comments

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 18,954
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 100,729
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Option for what?

    Hit and run and hide little boy
  • allpurpleallgoldallpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Yeah but dead birds.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 100,729
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Lots of dead birds

  • HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,951
    First Anniversary First Comment Photogenic 5 Awesomes
    edited July 2019
    Read this report a little while back...there is some stupid in it that gets taken to the extreme by folks that don't know/understand it that its kinda sad. But what should you expect from the International Renewable Energy Agency.

    One simple question...which do you think lasts much, much longer and costs much, much less to maintain. A single natural gas fired electricity plant that generates 500MW of power or 350 onshore wind turbines covering about 260 acres. I seemed to have missed that cost in the economics above...

    Not to mention the asset utilization rates (i.e. when does it produce) and all sorts of other fun stuff...
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes

    Read this report a little while back...there is some stupid in it that gets taken to the extreme by folks that don't know/understand it that its kinda sad. But what should you expect from the International Renewable Energy Agency.

    One simple question...which do you think lasts much, much longer and costs much, much less to maintain. A single natural gas fired electricity plant that generates 500MW of power or 350 onshore wind turbines covering about 260 acres. I seemed to have missed that cost in the economics above...

    Not to mention the asset utilization rates (i.e. when does it produce) and all sorts of other fun stuff...

    Depends. Can you include the costs of the destruction of the environment and pollution from the natural gas fired plant?
  • HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,951
    First Anniversary First Comment Photogenic 5 Awesomes
    edited July 2019
    2001400ex said:

    Read this report a little while back...there is some stupid in it that gets taken to the extreme by folks that don't know/understand it that its kinda sad. But what should you expect from the International Renewable Energy Agency.

    One simple question...which do you think lasts much, much longer and costs much, much less to maintain. A single natural gas fired electricity plant that generates 500MW of power or 350 onshore wind turbines covering about 260 acres. I seemed to have missed that cost in the economics above...

    Not to mention the asset utilization rates (i.e. when does it produce) and all sorts of other fun stuff...

    Depends. Can you include the costs of the destruction of the environment and pollution from the natural gas fired plant?
    Pollution? Versus what...killing at least a half a million birds a year that windmills are expected to kill, the 2 years equivalent of coal burned to make each solar panel in China, or the silicon tetrachloride and hydrofluoric acid they like to dump in their rivers and the environment from their manufacture and maintenance? Just curious what we are allowed to include and not include...

    HondoFS...
  • GreenRiverGatorzGreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,147
    First Comment First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes

    2001400ex said:

    Read this report a little while back...there is some stupid in it that gets taken to the extreme by folks that don't know/understand it that its kinda sad. But what should you expect from the International Renewable Energy Agency.

    One simple question...which do you think lasts much, much longer and costs much, much less to maintain. A single natural gas fired electricity plant that generates 500MW of power or 350 onshore wind turbines covering about 260 acres. I seemed to have missed that cost in the economics above...

    Not to mention the asset utilization rates (i.e. when does it produce) and all sorts of other fun stuff...

    Depends. Can you include the costs of the destruction of the environment and pollution from the natural gas fired plant?
    Pollution? Versus what...killing at least a half a million birds a year that windmills are expected to kill, the 2 years equivalent of coal burned to make each solar panel in China, or the silicon tetrachloride and hydrofluoric acid they like to dump in their rivers and the environment from their manufacture and maintenance? Just curious what we are allowed to include and not include...

    HondoFS...
    The serious answer is all of them. External costs should never be ignored.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes

    2001400ex said:

    Read this report a little while back...there is some stupid in it that gets taken to the extreme by folks that don't know/understand it that its kinda sad. But what should you expect from the International Renewable Energy Agency.

    One simple question...which do you think lasts much, much longer and costs much, much less to maintain. A single natural gas fired electricity plant that generates 500MW of power or 350 onshore wind turbines covering about 260 acres. I seemed to have missed that cost in the economics above...

    Not to mention the asset utilization rates (i.e. when does it produce) and all sorts of other fun stuff...

    Depends. Can you include the costs of the destruction of the environment and pollution from the natural gas fired plant?
    Pollution? Versus what...killing at least a half a million birds a year that windmills are expected to kill, the 2 years equivalent of coal burned to make each solar panel in China, or the silicon tetrachloride and hydrofluoric acid they like to dump in their rivers and the environment from their manufacture and maintenance? Just curious what we are allowed to include and not include...

    HondoFS...
    The serious answer is all of them. External costs should never be ignored.
    This. Yes include it all. Then get back to us on the costs for both sides.
  • WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 13,701
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment 5 Up Votes
    Standard Supporter
    Any analysis that shows renewables as cheaper than a combined cycle natural gas plant is at best dealing with half-truths and ignoring the actual cost of delivered power. If this were the case then electricity prices would be declining in California rather than being the highest on the western US. Utility scale solar power and wind power generally come from nowhere and need to be transmitted to somewhere. Additional transmission costs are never factored into building a new wind plant in Wyoming in these analysis. Any solar or wind power has to be backed up by base load power from either coal, natural gas, hydro or nukes. There is no other alternative other than periodic blackouts. If renewables were now cheaper, we should immediately terminate the massive federal tax credit incentives associated with new solar and wind. We aren’t because they remain essential to new solar and wind construction. If they were now cheaper, we wouldn’t need states to pass renewable energy mandates forcing utility customers to pay for this supposedly cheaper electrical power.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/why-wind-and-solar-will-never-work.php
    WHY WIND AND SOLAR WILL NEVER WORK
    This paper by Mark Mills of the the Manhattan Institute and Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, titled “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” does an excellent job of explaining why wind and solar energy will never replace fossil fuels or nuclear energy as a primary energy source. The problem is fundamental: the laws of physics. And, no, better batteries are not a solution. I really urge you to read the whole thing:
    * Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
    * Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
    * The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
    “Green” energy is the 21st century’s most egregious instance of cronyism. A great deal of money is being made on account of government mandates and subsidies, while consumers and electricity rate payers are needlessly paying inflated bills.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 41,660
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes

    Any analysis that shows renewables as cheaper than a combined cycle natural gas plant is at best dealing with half-truths and ignoring the actual cost of delivered power. If this were the case then electricity prices would be declining in California rather than being the highest on the western US. Utility scale solar power and wind power generally come from nowhere and need to be transmitted to somewhere. Additional transmission costs are never factored into building a new wind plant in Wyoming in these analysis. Any solar or wind power has to be backed up by base load power from either coal, natural gas, hydro or nukes. There is no other alternative other than periodic blackouts. If renewables were now cheaper, we should immediately terminate the massive federal tax credit incentives associated with new solar and wind. We aren’t because they remain essential to new solar and wind construction. If they were now cheaper, we wouldn’t need states to pass renewable energy mandates forcing utility customers to pay for this supposedly cheaper electrical power.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/why-wind-and-solar-will-never-work.php
    WHY WIND AND SOLAR WILL NEVER WORK
    This paper by Mark Mills of the the Manhattan Institute and Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, titled “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” does an excellent job of explaining why wind and solar energy will never replace fossil fuels or nuclear energy as a primary energy source. The problem is fundamental: the laws of physics. And, no, better batteries are not a solution. I really urge you to read the whole thing:
    * Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
    * Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
    * The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
    “Green” energy is the 21st century’s most egregious instance of cronyism. A great deal of money is being made on account of government mandates and subsidies, while consumers and electricity rate payers are needlessly paying inflated bills.

    THIS is the single biggest issue. Storage and peak use times.

    Rivers run all night. Natural gas plants chug on when the wind doesn't blow. Coal gives no fucks on whether the sun is out or not.

  • GwadGwad Member Posts: 2,855
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes First Comment 5 Awesomes

    Any analysis that shows renewables as cheaper than a combined cycle natural gas plant is at best dealing with half-truths and ignoring the actual cost of delivered power. If this were the case then electricity prices would be declining in California rather than being the highest on the western US. Utility scale solar power and wind power generally come from nowhere and need to be transmitted to somewhere. Additional transmission costs are never factored into building a new wind plant in Wyoming in these analysis. Any solar or wind power has to be backed up by base load power from either coal, natural gas, hydro or nukes. There is no other alternative other than periodic blackouts. If renewables were now cheaper, we should immediately terminate the massive federal tax credit incentives associated with new solar and wind. We aren’t because they remain essential to new solar and wind construction. If they were now cheaper, we wouldn’t need states to pass renewable energy mandates forcing utility customers to pay for this supposedly cheaper electrical power.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/why-wind-and-solar-will-never-work.php
    WHY WIND AND SOLAR WILL NEVER WORK
    This paper by Mark Mills of the the Manhattan Institute and Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, titled “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” does an excellent job of explaining why wind and solar energy will never replace fossil fuels or nuclear energy as a primary energy source. The problem is fundamental: the laws of physics. And, no, better batteries are not a solution. I really urge you to read the whole thing:
    * Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
    * Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
    * The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
    “Green” energy is the 21st century’s most egregious instance of cronyism. A great deal of money is being made on account of government mandates and subsidies, while consumers and electricity rate payers are needlessly paying inflated bills.

    THIS is the single biggest issue. Storage and peak use times.

    Rivers run all night. Natural gas plants chug on when the wind doesn't blow. Coal gives no fucks on whether the sun is out or not.

    Fossil fuels are formed from the remains of ancient organisms. Because coal takes millions of years to develop and there is a limited amount of it, it is a nonrenewable resource. The conditions that would eventually create coal began to develop about 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous period.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 30,483
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Gwad said:

    Any analysis that shows renewables as cheaper than a combined cycle natural gas plant is at best dealing with half-truths and ignoring the actual cost of delivered power. If this were the case then electricity prices would be declining in California rather than being the highest on the western US. Utility scale solar power and wind power generally come from nowhere and need to be transmitted to somewhere. Additional transmission costs are never factored into building a new wind plant in Wyoming in these analysis. Any solar or wind power has to be backed up by base load power from either coal, natural gas, hydro or nukes. There is no other alternative other than periodic blackouts. If renewables were now cheaper, we should immediately terminate the massive federal tax credit incentives associated with new solar and wind. We aren’t because they remain essential to new solar and wind construction. If they were now cheaper, we wouldn’t need states to pass renewable energy mandates forcing utility customers to pay for this supposedly cheaper electrical power.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/why-wind-and-solar-will-never-work.php
    WHY WIND AND SOLAR WILL NEVER WORK
    This paper by Mark Mills of the the Manhattan Institute and Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, titled “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” does an excellent job of explaining why wind and solar energy will never replace fossil fuels or nuclear energy as a primary energy source. The problem is fundamental: the laws of physics. And, no, better batteries are not a solution. I really urge you to read the whole thing:
    * Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
    * Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
    * The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
    “Green” energy is the 21st century’s most egregious instance of cronyism. A great deal of money is being made on account of government mandates and subsidies, while consumers and electricity rate payers are needlessly paying inflated bills.

    THIS is the single biggest issue. Storage and peak use times.

    Rivers run all night. Natural gas plants chug on when the wind doesn't blow. Coal gives no fucks on whether the sun is out or not.

    Fossil fuels are formed from the remains of ancient organisms. Because coal takes millions of years to develop and there is a limited amount of it, it is a nonrenewable resource. The conditions that would eventually create coal began to develop about 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous period.
    It happened when God said so. HTH
  • UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 14,104
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Gwad said:

    Any analysis that shows renewables as cheaper than a combined cycle natural gas plant is at best dealing with half-truths and ignoring the actual cost of delivered power. If this were the case then electricity prices would be declining in California rather than being the highest on the western US. Utility scale solar power and wind power generally come from nowhere and need to be transmitted to somewhere. Additional transmission costs are never factored into building a new wind plant in Wyoming in these analysis. Any solar or wind power has to be backed up by base load power from either coal, natural gas, hydro or nukes. There is no other alternative other than periodic blackouts. If renewables were now cheaper, we should immediately terminate the massive federal tax credit incentives associated with new solar and wind. We aren’t because they remain essential to new solar and wind construction. If they were now cheaper, we wouldn’t need states to pass renewable energy mandates forcing utility customers to pay for this supposedly cheaper electrical power.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/why-wind-and-solar-will-never-work.php
    WHY WIND AND SOLAR WILL NEVER WORK
    This paper by Mark Mills of the the Manhattan Institute and Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, titled “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” does an excellent job of explaining why wind and solar energy will never replace fossil fuels or nuclear energy as a primary energy source. The problem is fundamental: the laws of physics. And, no, better batteries are not a solution. I really urge you to read the whole thing:
    * Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
    * Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
    * The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
    “Green” energy is the 21st century’s most egregious instance of cronyism. A great deal of money is being made on account of government mandates and subsidies, while consumers and electricity rate payers are needlessly paying inflated bills.

    THIS is the single biggest issue. Storage and peak use times.

    Rivers run all night. Natural gas plants chug on when the wind doesn't blow. Coal gives no fucks on whether the sun is out or not.

    Fossil fuels are formed from the remains of ancient organisms. Because coal takes millions of years to develop and there is a limited amount of it, it is a nonrenewable resource. The conditions that would eventually create coal began to develop about 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous period.
    Lol.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes

    Any analysis that shows renewables as cheaper than a combined cycle natural gas plant is at best dealing with half-truths and ignoring the actual cost of delivered power. If this were the case then electricity prices would be declining in California rather than being the highest on the western US. Utility scale solar power and wind power generally come from nowhere and need to be transmitted to somewhere. Additional transmission costs are never factored into building a new wind plant in Wyoming in these analysis. Any solar or wind power has to be backed up by base load power from either coal, natural gas, hydro or nukes. There is no other alternative other than periodic blackouts. If renewables were now cheaper, we should immediately terminate the massive federal tax credit incentives associated with new solar and wind. We aren’t because they remain essential to new solar and wind construction. If they were now cheaper, we wouldn’t need states to pass renewable energy mandates forcing utility customers to pay for this supposedly cheaper electrical power.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/why-wind-and-solar-will-never-work.php
    WHY WIND AND SOLAR WILL NEVER WORK
    This paper by Mark Mills of the the Manhattan Institute and Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, titled “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” does an excellent job of explaining why wind and solar energy will never replace fossil fuels or nuclear energy as a primary energy source. The problem is fundamental: the laws of physics. And, no, better batteries are not a solution. I really urge you to read the whole thing:
    * Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
    * Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
    * The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
    “Green” energy is the 21st century’s most egregious instance of cronyism. A great deal of money is being made on account of government mandates and subsidies, while consumers and electricity rate payers are needlessly paying inflated bills.

    Hate to burst your bubble. But wind and solar are working now. HTH
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,480
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter

    We NEED to do SOMETHING!

    Why? All for naught in 12 11.5 years anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.