# $36 Trillion for Clean Energy, IEA reports.



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

IEA calls for 36 trillion in clean energy funds - Jun. 12 2012



> *IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments*
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The International Energy Agency said the world's clean energyinvestments are sorely lacking and this week called for an additional $36 trillion of funding by 2050.
> 
> ...


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

$ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 11, 2015)

Most of this will be paid by investors running into solar energy and out of coal!!! Solar is now the second most installed source of energy in this country as of last year.

The big dogs at the top of the private energy sector are going to invest trillions!


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

We must invest our retirement into clean energy, our insurance money must all go into clean energy.

All the money in the World must go into Clean Energy.

The Government must have all the money, period.

http://www.oecd.org/environment/WP_23_TheRoleOfInstitutionalInvestorsInFinancingCleanEnergy.pdf



> institutional investors – including pension funds and insurance companies - potentially have an important role to play in financing clean energy programmes. This is a potentially „win win‟ situation. Given the current


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 11, 2015)

The *World* GDP is 67 Trillion. The IEA just wants to bankrupt everyone.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 11, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> The *World* GDP is 67 Trillion. The IEA just wants to bankrupt everyone.



It will be done over 50 years and mostly from private investment! Certainly, they will get some government money to reduce cost in the short term, but as we can already see. Well, solar and wind are doing pretty good with very little of that.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > The *World* GDP is 67 Trillion. The IEA just wants to bankrupt everyone.
> ...


Mostly from private investing? Although 100% mandated through government rules, laws and regulations.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 11, 2015)

Hundreds of thousands of private sector clean energy jobs have been created!!!!

Possibly millions more coming soon!!!! Wahoooo!!! Solar and wind rule over coal in 2014!!!


----------



## Tom Sweetnam (Feb 11, 2015)

$36 trillion would buy a lot of bullets, the best expedient I can imagine to cure the global warming scam.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 11, 2015)

This news is going to backfire and fuck up Obama's clean energy plan.  With this money we'd be on mars in a city in 20 years.


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2015)

elektra said:


> $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.


World wide.  What's wrong with you?  Can't you read?


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Hundreds of thousands of private sector clean energy jobs have been created!!!!
> 
> Possibly millions more coming soon!!!! Wahoooo!!! Solar and wind rule over coal in 2014!!!


Earth to Matthew, Earth to Matthew...........

Google



> *Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in ...*
> - Bloomberg
> 
> Mar 27, 2009 - ... at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to astudy from King ... In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last ... “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost ...deciding to expand in South Africa and the U.S., according to the study.
> ...


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> The *World* GDP is 67 Trillion. The IEA just wants to bankrupt everyone.


It's not a ONE YEAR investment.

These right wingers.  Are they pretending to be stupid?  Or is it for real?


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

rdean said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.
> ...


Sorry, it just went up, $ 42 trillion dollars.

http://www.oecd.org/environment/WP_23_TheRoleOfInstitutionalInvestorsInFinancingCleanEnergy.pdf



> Decarbonising the world‟s energy system while providing energy access for all will require enormous investments. Achieving this economy-wide transformation will require cumulative investment in green infrastructure in the range of USD 36-42 trillion between 2012 and 2030,


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

rdean said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.
> ...


$42 trillion, if they can stay under budget.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

rdean said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > The *World* GDP is 67 Trillion. The IEA just wants to bankrupt everyone.
> ...


I know, its not 1 year, like all other forms of Energy, this is forever.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 11, 2015)

Here in America renewables are being put on roofs and built by utilities nation wide. Most of this is being done privately!!!

And yes, within 5 years even natural gas will be looking up at solar!!!


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 11, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Here in America renewables are being put on roofs and built by utilities nation wide. Most of this is being done privately!!!
> 
> And yes, within 5 years even natural gas will be looking up at solar!!!



I'd fund mars before any of this shit.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 11, 2015)

elektra said:


> $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.


Read the link. That's $36 trillion over the next 35 years (an average of 1 trillion a year) spread over all developed nations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2015)

Well, the economics dictate what will be. And solar, wind, and geothermal are soon all going to be cheaper than coal, gas, or nuclear. And no dangerous byproducts, no radioactive waste, no destruction of the landscape with strip mines, no fracking near the water table, or methane escaping into the atmosphere. The externalities alone will dictate that. 

We are going to spend at least that, worldwide, on evergy in any case. We are going to spend more than that on the results of climate change by 2050.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Here in America renewables are being put on roofs and built by utilities nation wide. Most of this is being done privately!!!
> 
> And yes, within 5 years even natural gas will be looking up at solar!!!



Nope, its the other way around, Solar looks to Natural Gas.
Big Solar Big Gas Ivanpah s dirty power - Master Resource


> *Big Solar: Big Gas (Ivanpah’s ‘dirty power’)*
> By Wayne Lusvardi -- April 2, 2014“It has been lauded as the world’s largest solar power plant, but the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) could also be called the world’s largest gas-fired power plant (largest in physical size, not gas consumption)." Chris Clarke continues in his piece, “Ivanpah Solar Plant Owners Want to burn a Lot More Natural Gas" (KCET, March 27, 2014):Each of the 4,000-acre facility’s three units has gas-fired boilers used to warm up the fluid in the turbines in the early morning, to keep that fluid at an optimum temperature during the night, and to boost production during the day when the sun goes behind a cloud…. Solar Partners says that in order for ISEGS (Ivanpah) to operate at full efficiency, the plant's gas-fired auxiliary boilers will need to run an average of 4.5 hours a day, rather than the one hour a day originally expected. The plant's total CO2 footprint from burning natural gas would rise to just above 92,200 tons per year, approximately equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas output of 16,500 average passenger cars.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, the economics dictate what will be. And solar, wind, and geothermal are soon all going to be cheaper than coal, gas, or nuclear. And no dangerous byproducts, no radioactive waste, no destruction of the landscape with strip mines, no fracking near the water table, or methane escaping into the atmosphere. The externalities alone will dictate that.
> 
> We are going to spend at least that, worldwide, on evergy in any case. We are going to spend more than that on the results of climate change by 2050.


$36 Trillion is, "cheaper"?


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 11, 2015)

Dont forget to ad Algores 90 trillion to redesign  major cities in the world to make them green.........


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2015)

You poor dumb fucks, we will be spending many trillions of dollars, just to supply the world's cities with water. Same for power and transportation. And then there is the problem of sea level rise. That alone will cost tens of trillions of dollars in the cities, and coastal communities and farms.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 11, 2015)

You fantasy warming lies   now back to reality


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 11, 2015)




----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> You poor dumb fucks, we will be spending many trillions of dollars, just to supply the world's cities with water. Same for power and transportation. And then there is the problem of sea level rise. That alone will cost tens of trillions of dollars in the cities, and coastal communities and farms.


link


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > You poor dumb fucks, we will be spending many trillions of dollars, just to supply the world's cities with water. Same for power and transportation. And then there is the problem of sea level rise. That alone will cost tens of trillions of dollars in the cities, and coastal communities and farms.
> ...



For water apos s sake Chicago researchers reach across the seas to Israel - Chicago Tribune
Water scarcity is no longer a problem buried in think tank monographs. It's a crisis that has begun to have palpable, disturbing implications for much of the globe. By 2030, nearly half of the world's population will be living in regions saddled with severe water stress, the UN projects. Over the last decade, the number of violent confrontations over water issues has risen fourfold, according to the Pacific Institute, a California-based think tank that studies global water scarcity.

http://www.climatecost.cc/images/Policy_brief_2_Coastal_10_lowres.pdf

55,000
projected number of people
directly affected by coastal
flooding each year by the
2050s (under the A1B
scenario)
€1.5bn
estimated annual incremental
costs of adaptation for the
2050s (A1B)
€11bn

*Many, many more warnings from those that have to consider the future for the cities.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


your link does not work


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 12, 2015)

We're all going to drown!!!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2015)

Wind and solar is infite sources of energy! When coal, natural gas and oil are all gone...Well, what do you think we will be thankful for???

lol


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Wind and solar is infite sources of energy! When coal, natural gas and oil are all gone...Well, what do you think we will be thankful for???
> 
> lol



When do you expect us to run out of those sources of energy... just an educated guess if you will!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Wind and solar is infite sources of energy! When coal, natural gas and oil are all gone...Well, what do you think we will be thankful for???
> ...



I expect coal by 2080, Oil by 2030-2040 and natural gas before 2120.

Europe has already seen its coal becoming uneconomical in quite a few areas. So it isn't infite...I expect to see our coal and China's run out between 2050 and 2080.

Oil is a wild guess, but the fact that we're moving opportions into deeper waters and drilling deeper tells me something....Same with natural gas.

Why not have at least 20% of our energy needs coming from renewables when the day comes? better safe then sorry, right?


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Wind and solar is infite sources of energy! When coal, natural gas and oil are all gone...Well, what do you think we will be thankful for???
> 
> lol


Land for Solar is finite, Good spots for Wind is finite. Both turn off, no wind=no energy, no sun=no energy.

Solar needs Oil, to be manufactured, maintained, and replaced, hence Solar panels are finite.

Wind needs Oil, to be manufactured, maintained, and replaced, hence Wind is finite. 

Physics, the Laws of Chemistry, dictate that harnessing Sun and Wind by man has a finite limitation.


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



May I say, you are CRAZY! Run out of NG in FIVE YEARS!!!!!

100 Year Supply New Study Doubles U.S. Natural Gas Reserves


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> IEA calls for 36 trillion in clean energy funds - Jun. 12 2012
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thought most scientists were saying we already passed the tipping point where we coulda prevented our own demise from climate change?


----------



## greyviper (Feb 12, 2015)

Renewables are going to last better than the current fossil fuels we use. It is better that we utilize them.

Seriously, no SUN? ---> how do you suppose the sun or solar radiation from the sun going to disappear anytime soon? According to physics estimates the sun is still going to shine for a few billion years before it bec0mes a red giant and eventually runs out of hydr0gen fuel.

How so that solar would continue to rely on oil? Are there not going to be advantages in technology in order to improve current design and method of how its produced?

How about wind? Does the wind will eventually stop to flow? As long as their is an imbalance in the heat distribution on the planet (which would certainly be continuing) there are certainly going to be wind currents. 

How about the flowing water? Does the earth going to run out of water anytime soon? Is the water cycle going to stop anytime soon? Hydrothermal source is also a viable source of energy.

Geothermal. Is the interior of the Earth going to cool down anytime soon? Does it need oil to maintain the thousands of degrees of heat inside the earth?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 12, 2015)

greyviper said:


> Renewables are going to last better than the current fossil fuels we use. It is better that we utilize them.
> 
> Seriously, no SUN? ---> how do you suppose the sun or solar radiation from the sun going to disappear anytime soon? According to physics estimates the sun is still going to shine for a few billion years before it bec0mes a red giant and eventually runs out of hydr0gen fuel.
> 
> ...



Except for water I'd agree. US aquifers where we get most of our's is nearly depleted. But for PBS documentaries though they don't talk about that much.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 12, 2015)

rdean said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.
> ...


You're the one with the reading problem.  "The International Energy Agency said the world's clean energy investments are sorely lacking and this week called for an additional $36 trillion of funding by 2050."  The IEA is a consortium of 29 nations.  There is no statement in the article or the 700 page IEA report that says the US will bear all costs.  In fact they have developed a cost allocation formula that spreads costs across all nations.  US dollars are used in all their reports because it's the most widely used reserve currency.

IEA calls for 36 trillion in clean energy funds - Jun. 12 2012


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

greyviper said:


> Renewables are going to last better than the current fossil fuels we use. It is better that we utilize them.
> 
> Seriously, no SUN? ---> how do you suppose the sun or solar radiation from the sun going to disappear anytime soon? According to physics estimates the sun is still going to shine for a few billion years before it bec0mes a red giant and eventually runs out of hydr0gen fuel.
> 
> ...


Renewable? Geothermal, now that is a good one. Instead of drilling for Oil you are going to drill for hot water and charge more for it than Oil?


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Except for water I'd agree. US aquifers where we get most of our's is nearly depleted. But for PBS documentaries though they don't talk about that much.


Where I live in Southern California they build Solar Plants on top of the aquifer and then pump the water out, by the acre foot to run the plant, and they tell us they can do this forever, everywhere in the U.S., everywhere in the World.

How is that? We have water for Solar but the water is almost all gone?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Except for water I'd agree. US aquifers where we get most of our's is nearly depleted. But for PBS documentaries though they don't talk about that much.
> ...



The resivor pump storage idea is truly stupid.  Whom will they deprive of  water to do this?  It wont be the city which produces nothing of value for food or power... it will be farmers and ranchers.. those evil oil people and Republicans...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2015)

A coal, nuclear or fossil fuel plant of any kind normally last 25-40 years. They're then replaced with a new generation of plants for another 25-40 years! *You think it is free to do this?* We can either choose to build a fossil fuel plant or a renewable one(wind farm, solar farm, etc) to do this job.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Except for water I'd agree. US aquifers where we get most of our's is nearly depleted. But for PBS documentaries though they don't talk about that much.
> ...


Link, asshole, otherwise just another lie.


----------



## greyviper (Feb 12, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > Renewables are going to last better than the current fossil fuels we use. It is better that we utilize them.
> ...





Delta4Embassy said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > Renewables are going to last better than the current fossil fuels we use. It is better that we utilize them.
> ...



I wonder what percent of the earth's surface is covered in water?

I don't reckon the water cycle is going to stop anytime soon even if US aquifers are nearly depleted. Besides, the water being used for hydrothermal energy production are not the water underground but the water that keeps flowing from the mountains (which continually get's its source from precipitated water from the atmosphere) down to the rivers, waterfalls and streams.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 12, 2015)

Despite billions spent in investments over decades, solar energy will only make up 0.6 percent of total electricity generation in the United States, according to a report released by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA).
Report Solar Energy Subsidies Cost 39 Billion Per Year Washington Free Beacon


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



It is well known that Solar requires massive amounts of water while only working in areas with no water, the desert. So how is it possible, you just stated the aquifers are empty but Solar is drawing water from those same aquifers. 

Seems like you are the liar, old crock. I even gave you a little picture, old crock.

Is Anything Stopping a Truly Massive Build-Out of Desert Solar Power - Scientific American


> *Water and dust*
> On the engineering side, though, Darling says that there are one or two challenges that still could be “deal breakers,” at least for some technologies. The big one is water. Concentrating solar power (CSP) plants, like traditional power plants, need to be cooled to run, and cooling takes water—lots of it. And of course, if water were abundant in the desert, it wouldn’t be the desert. At Ivanpah, on-site wells supply the plant with water, but that solution won’t always be feasible. “I can’t think of any technical way around that unless a dry cooling technology that’s effective and affordable is developed,” Darling says. “No one has really come up with a way to do that.”
> 
> For photovoltaics (PV), water is only needed to clean the panels, which brings up the second large problem with desert solar: dust. Solar panels and mirrors need to be cleaned almost daily if efficiencies are to stay where they need to be. Dust is not transparent, so even just one gram of dust per square meter of solar panel area can reduce efficiency by around 40 percent. At that rate, it doesn’t take long in a dusty desert for the problem to become intractable


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Not to mention your ethanol plants waste it at obscene levels


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


God almighty this boondoggle gets worse by the story.


----------



## greyviper (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > Renewables are going to last better than the current fossil fuels we use. It is better that we utilize them.
> ...



How so are we going to charge more for geothermal than oil? The water is already hot or could be in the form of steam already, thus it can be readily used to drive steam turbines which could generate enough megawatts to power cities. Though it may have some downside because natural landscape around the heat/steam source would be heavily altered in order to make room for all the instruments, equipments, pipings and tubings, etc that would be necessary to constitute a fully working and sustainable geothermal energy power plant.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

greyviper said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > greyviper said:
> ...


Another lie, all one has to do is read the Environmental Impact Statement, care for Ivanpah's or California Solar Flats on the Carrizo Plain, you know the land Apple has agreed to destroy for politics.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 12, 2015)

If I remember one of the charts I posted Geothermal is growing much faster than solar.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> A coal, nuclear or fossil fuel plant of any kind normally last 25-40 years. They're then replaced with a new generation of plants for another 25-40 years! *You think it is free to do this?* We can either choose to build a fossil fuel plant or a renewable one(wind farm, solar farm, etc) to do this job.


and replace the wind turbines every five to seven years as they self destruct....The stupid it burns...


----------



## greyviper (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Another false claim by you or rather a faulty analysis. Creating huge solar farms requires complex and sophisticated planning of course. If land is just being destroyed to give way to huge areas that would accommodated the hundreds and thousands of square meters of solar panels, then it thus have significant environmental impact. The key there is proper planning and design. There should be ways that could be undertaken that would not destroy natural landscape by creating adaptive placement and positioning of the panels. In the case of desert areas, then I guess that would be much easier. Desert areas can still be improved by the way. There are nations that are mostly desert yet they were able to produce 90-95% of their food needs by using high level of technology in harnessing it.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 12, 2015)

Manonthestreet said:


> Despite billions spent in investments over decades, solar energy will only make up 0.6 percent of total electricity generation in the United States, according to a report released by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA).
> Report Solar Energy Subsidies Cost 39 Billion Per Year Washington Free Beacon


Yes but look at the growth rate
Yr      Power* Growth
2010    1,212          35%
2011    1,818          50%
2012    3,990       119%
2013    8,514       113%
2014   17,360      103%

* Thousands of Megawatts

At 100% a year growth rate .19% of our power would come from solar in 5 years.  Solar is our fastest growing fuel source.

EIA - Electricity Data


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 12, 2015)

Awful expensive for less than 1% of total generation


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 13, 2015)

elektra said:


> IEA calls for 36 trillion in clean energy funds - Jun. 12 2012
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How much do you think we have paid for dirty energy, all told?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Despite billions spent in investments over decades, solar energy will only make up 0.6 percent of total electricity generation in the United States, according to a report released by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA).
> ...





Bogus statistics thrown out by fake phony frauds.............

Solar now.........TOTAL..........makes up 0.2% of US energy production via solar!!!

Solar Provides 0.2 of Electric Supply--Up From 0.02 Before Obama CNS News

How impressive is that?

Progressive assholes always like to post up statistics that display growth rates that lack overall comparisons............ these increases of 1000% etc............but when measured against numbers that matter, they end up looking like a joke.

Even Obama's IEA projects ALL renewables accounting for less than 10% of our energy by 2040!!!


Volumes of links/graphs here back this up >>> More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Solar power is a joke and will be for decades..........all the info you need in the above link ^^




[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/SmileyFace.png.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2015)

Hey....by the way......I think all the AGW crowd............in a show of sincerity.........should have to stand naked outside here on Long Island this morning!!! Even for 10 minutes!!!


Fair enough assholes????


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2015)

rdean said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.
> ...


so, how does your post have anything to do with the post you responded to?


----------



## elektra (Feb 13, 2015)

rdean said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.
> ...


Is worldwide one word or two? So yes I can read, can you. 

$36 trillion, $42 trillion, $67 trillion, those are some of the figures put out by the Clean Green Repeatable rip-off that you folks claim is sustainable. 

How much money exactly are we speaking of, then once we establish that we can quibble who is going to pay for it, thus far the burden is on the USA, I am thinking IMF and World Bank, what are thinking, or are you to busy figuring out how to make $67 trillion appear small?


----------



## Flopper (Feb 13, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...


According to your link the total electricity supply by solar power sources increased 10 fold in 5 years.  Solar power generation is in it's infancy. 10 years ago Solar Photovoltaic generation was producing only 6 thousand megawatts.  In 2014 it had increased to over 15 million.


----------



## elektra (Feb 13, 2015)

Flopper said:


> According to your link the total electricity supply by solar power sources increased 10 fold in 5 years.  Solar power generation is in it's infancy. 10 years ago Solar Photovoltaic generation was producing only 6 thousand megawatts.  In 2014 it had increased to over 15 million.


Yet it cost so much, will cost trillions more. Solar destroys the Earth, 10 fold increase in 5 years, and its in it's infancy.

Never have we spent so much, destroyed so much, and had so little in return.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 13, 2015)

Flopper said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


EIA - Electricity Data


----------



## Flopper (Feb 13, 2015)

elektra said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


There has been no agreement as to the total cost nor how those cost should be allocated after 15 years of working on the problem.  Even if there is some agreement, it seems very unlikely that US would do any more than allocate funds to convert some of the older fossil fuel plants provided we decide what to convert them to.  There's no need to worry about the US spending $36 trillion to fix global warming.  They'll be fighting about this long after we're all gone and folks are water skiing in arctic.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 13, 2015)

I just pissed on a solar panel and nothing happened.  wtf?


----------



## Kosh (Feb 13, 2015)

Flopper said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



So how many trees and wildlife are AGW cult going to sacrifice to build enough solar plants to try and replace coal?


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 13, 2015)

Someone please wrest this Nation from the un-vetted semi-negro Muslim non-citizen Communist Community Liberal Orgasmizer.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 14, 2015)

So the AGW wants to spend $36 Trillion on trying to control 4% of the Carbon Dioxide that is created by humans that will not stop Climate change.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 14, 2015)

Mr. H. said:


> Someone please wrest this Nation from the un-vetted semi-negro Muslim non-citizen Communist Community Liberal Orgasmizer.



Solar and wind won't stop growing because it is now 95% privately done! Utilities is doing it and that means your side failed!


----------



## Kosh (Feb 14, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Someone please wrest this Nation from the un-vetted semi-negro Muslim non-citizen Communist Community Liberal Orgasmizer.
> ...



Yet the environmental groups that have the ear of the far left could change that!


----------



## Flopper (Feb 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Solar is never going to replace coal for power generation.  The most likely replacement is a combination of natural gas and solar.  Natural gas produces about half the CO2 of coal, however it produces only small fraction of the smog producing pollutants in the air.   Solar is obviously best suited for desert areas and natural gas for other areas.

There is no one replacement for fossil fuels.  Both wind and solar are good in some areas not in others.  Fear of nuclear radiation makes nuclear power plants a hard sell even though if does solve both the CO2 and air pollution problems.  Fusion isn't practical today.

I believe in the 21st century we will reduce the number of fossil fuel generating plants and replace some with less polluting fossil fuels such as natural gas but there will be fossil fuel power generation well into the 22nd century. 

Some of the more dire predictions of climate change may occur this century and shock the world into action.  However, I have doubts about that because humans are very adaptable to deterioration in conditions as long as those conditions occur slowly.  We simply don't know how to deal with a global disaster that spans hundreds of years.  To deal with the problem would require global coordination and huge expenditures far into the future.  That's not realist in today's world.  We will simply adapt to AGW, slow the growth of greenhouse gases and as conditions worsen just deal with them..


----------



## elektra (Feb 14, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Someone please wrest this Nation from the un-vetted semi-negro Muslim non-citizen Communist Community Liberal Orgasmizer.
> ...


Liar, utilities are forced to do because california and Oregon passed laws forcing and dictating green energy on us. 

That makes this 100% a government program. I know of zero projects done without the government.


----------



## elektra (Feb 14, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Right, in a sub zero winter storm you make the claim that our earth is now warming and melting the ice caps?

Your solution is to increase the use if fossil fuel to destroy more land to build more solar?


----------



## Flopper (Feb 14, 2015)

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


Conveying to green energy cost money.  Why should any company convert existing energy sources?  To ensure the future of the planet? Not likely.  Conversion means additional cost which means less profits. The only way anything get's converted is if government mandates it or it's more cost effective, which is not usually the case..



.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

Kosh said:


> So the AGW wants to spend $36 Trillion on trying to control 4% of the Carbon Dioxide that is created by humans that will not stop Climate change.


Its far less than that..




 
its roughly 0003ppm, man contribution.


----------



## greyviper (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > According to your link the total electricity supply by solar power sources increased 10 fold in 5 years.  Solar power generation is in it's infancy. 10 years ago Solar Photovoltaic generation was producing only 6 thousand megawatts.  In 2014 it had increased to over 15 million.
> ...



how so does solar destr0ys the earth? its utter n0n-sense. its a faulty claim.

by saying trillions, in the value of what?


----------



## greyviper (Feb 16, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



how so can you say that solar power producti0n need t0 topple d0wn s0 many trees and destr0y wildlife?

last time i checked, the biggest s0lar installati0ns in the US for example are set up and laid out on swaths of desert. where n0 significant number 0f trees gr0w and n0 particular wildlife is affected. Your statement is real pointless and goes t0 sh0w that you kn0w nothing 0f what you are talking of.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


there is no evidence yet to support that.  In fact, the evidence from Europe tells the opposite.

link Green Energy Holding FAILURE OF GREEN ENERGY IN EUROPE


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2015)

greyviper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


 how are they made?????


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2015)

greyviper said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


 no wildlife affected?  Question, did you research that before making the statement?


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

greyviper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


It kills the land it covers, no plants, no rabbits, or turtles, miles of mirrors even attract birds, disrupting their migration. The earth also absorbs heat, not anymore, that is reflected back into the atmosphere further raising the temperature. Solar needs millions of gallons of water, which in this Mega - Drought er are suffering through is another extreme burden on the environment.

Yes 36 trillion is a lot, I have seen estimates as high as 67 trillion, and more if we include the infrastructure for millions and millions of charging stations.

Trillions of dollars will be spent on increasing oil production so that we can manufacture miles upon miles of solar, we will increase oil production to produce the toxic chemicals to build 40 story tall wind mills. Millions of them.

Every small town in America must build skyscrapers, 40 stories tall, in the form of a wind mill.

Build, build, build, the biggest heavy industry in the world spending  the most money in the shortest time the world has ever seen.

Solar and wind are failing in europe, across the usa,  so the government is doubling down.

Trillions of dollars is at risk.

Greed and power, the clean energy?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2015)

Elektra is so full of shit. Most of the solar going in is PV. And the desert animals probably appreciate the shade. Very little water used in PV, maybe twice or three times a year cleaned as you would wash a window. And solar is very good on commercial, industrial, and warehouse roofs. Solar has a very bright future, indeed.


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Elektra is so full of shit. Most of the solar going in is PV. And the desert animals probably appreciate the shade. Very little water used in PV, maybe twice or three times a year cleaned as you would wash a window. And solar is very good on commercial, industrial, and warehouse roofs. Solar has a very bright future, indeed.


I was unaware that commercial, industrial, and warehouse roofs were designed for Solar Panels, further being in a city, semi-trucks, there will be a nice sooty smog type of film that will need to be cleaned from the Solar Panels. 3x's a year, maybe? But the bottom line is Solar Panels are about tax breaks so it simply does not matter if they are cleaned and took care of, once installed you get a tax break.

Solar on the roofs of Warehouses, sounds like a nightmare when its time to put a new roof on, or if the roof needs a simple repair. I wonder how many roofs will leak after attaching Solar, beings how the roofs were never designed for Solar. 

The Government Dictating which how we are to get our energy, we must spend 36 trillion dollars, increasing oil production, we must spend 36 trillion dollars, increasing the use of Steel, Cement, Concrete, Aluminum, Fiberglass, Silica, Copper, Titanium, Cadmium, Lithium, and all kinds of other stuff. Build, build, build, build. 

Sounds like Wall Street is going to make a huge profit off that 36 Trillion dollars to be spent.

Who else gets rich, off that 36 trillion dollars, I guess the banks will make Billions, in interest, off the government guaranteed loans.

Its a win for Corporations.

Its a win for Banks.

Its a win for Wall Street.

Its a win for Politicians

Its a win for the Government Worker bees.

Everyone wins, even us because we get to pay the most anyone has ever paid for something that used to be cheap, Electricity.

Of course they must double down on the war against oil, so we will see our Oil price skyrocket, once our government gains control of oil, again.


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

greyviper said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


You never heard of the endangered Desert Tortoise? Burrowing Owls? Foxes, Rabbits, Squirrels, Mice, Horny Toads, Lizards, Snakes? 
I thought the people who promote Solar are knowledgeable about Science and the Earth? 

I guess our schools have failed, who teaches people that deserts are a wasteland that we should just turn into an Industrial Solar Power Station that stretches 100's of miles?


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Exactly my thoughts.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 17, 2015)

You want to save this Elecktra?


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> You want to save this Elecktra?


When I speak, write, its from experience, knowledge, first hand stuff. This one I let go, it was not close to my house so I did not care.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

The Desert is alive, or was.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 17, 2015)

Yup, you are weird..  I like you, though.  We have good times ahead of us.


----------



## greyviper (Feb 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



if you mean the solar panels, then you can google it.

"How solar panels are made" or better yet;

"the future of cheap and efficient solar panel production".


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

greyviper said:


> if you mean the solar panels, then you can google it.
> 
> "How solar panels are made" or better yet;
> 
> "the future of cheap and efficient solar panel production".


$ 36 trillion dollars is cheap?


----------



## greyviper (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Another long and b0ring rhetoric. How so can the solar kills the land it c0vers? Is there a conclusive study about this? Or you are just making this statement out of your own opinion in 0rder t0 say s0mething against s0lar energy.  

I could not see why reflecting the heat into the atmosphere would further raise the temperature. Its suppose to cool down since the heat is not abs0rbed rather reflected back int0 the upper atmosphere towards space.

I also do not see milli0ns 0f gall0ns 0f water needed in 0rder f0r the s0lar plant facility to functi0n.

Producti0n, producti0n and producti0n...cann0t be attributed al0ne t0 the pr0ducti0n 0f s0lar panels al0ne. F0r n0w 0f course we are reliant on oil. It must n0t c0ntinue at all indefinitely. We must at s0me point st0p 0ur reliance on such source 0f energy because its finite.


----------



## greyviper (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > if you mean the solar panels, then you can google it.
> ...



have you als0 c0nsidered the amount 0f m0ney that was spent since our reliance on f0ssil fuels ??


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2015)

greyviper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > greyviper said:
> ...



Maybe you should learn about them before posting about it.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

greyviper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > greyviper said:
> ...


No, you have to consider you will use up all the money and all the oil to build miles and miles of solar panels and miles and miles of wind turbines. At the end of the day they will not supply us with 1% of our power.


----------



## greyviper (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



W0w, what an exaggerati0n...all the m0ney and all the oil. I don't think s0lar and wind since you included it is going t0 pr0vide only 1% of our p0wer needs. That is pr0bably if the techn0l0gy would n0t be devel0ped and impr0ved instead its going t0 decline in quality. As our oil supply and reserves dwindle (an eventually sucked dry), we d0n't have a ch0ice after all. St0p our dependence on it, 0r st0p existing and thriving as a civilization.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

greyviper said:


> W0w, what an exaggerati0n...all the m0ney and all the oil. I don't think s0lar and wind since you included it is going t0 pr0vide only 1% of our p0wer needs. That is pr0bably if the techn0l0gy would n0t be devel0ped and impr0ved instead its going t0 decline in quality. As our oil supply and reserves dwindle (an eventually sucked dry), we d0n't have a ch0ice after all. St0p our dependence on it, 0r st0p existing and thriving as a civilization.


The $36 trillion dollar figure comes from the IAE, a Wind and Solar industry lobbying group. I made a thread specifically about the cost, as reported by the Wind and Solar industry lobbyist.

IEA - International Energy Agency - affordable clean energy for all iea.org

Technology? Technically speaking, Solar is weak and the Wind blows around things. Foolish to pursue such things. We can not wait for the Sun to come up or the Wind to blow to power our World. Even a tiny bit is extremely expensive and takes funds away from research that is needed, like to stop cancer.

This is about money, power, greed, and politics.

Nothing more.


----------



## greyviper (Feb 18, 2015)

Well I believe this is just stubbornness to continue our reliance on fossil fuels and not find some alternatives and backup sources of power. Money is money after all, its useful, advantageous if you have some agenda that you want to further, The oil and gas giants I believe do not have a deficit on this important resource, Factor in all the greed, hunger for power and influence, politics and everything for everybody's sake and then we have this two factions struggling for control.

By the way, I would like to take this opportunity to promote this fairly new collaborative project: *erissolver.com*
I believe with all the intelligence and knowledge you all there claim to have you could throw lot of disruptions and eye-opening concepts regarding the current problems that we as a human civilization face nowadays. With collective intelligence, solving a myriad of complex and highly sophisticated problems would be more efficient and easier. A lot of algorithms for data analytics can also be implemented to fully dissect and process the gathered data.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 18, 2015)

greyviper said:


> Well I believe this is just stubbornness to continue our reliance on fossil fuels and not find some alternatives and backup sources of power. Money is money after all, its useful, advantageous if you have some agenda that you want to further, The oil and gas giants I believe do not have a deficit on this important resource, Factor in all the greed, hunger for power and influence, politics and everything for everybody's sake and then we have this two factions struggling for control.
> 
> By the way, I would like to take this opportunity to promote this fairly new collaborative project: *erissolver.com*
> I believe with all the intelligence and knowledge you all there claim to have you could throw lot of disruptions and eye-opening concepts regarding the current problems that we as a human civilization face nowadays. With collective intelligence, solving a myriad of complex and highly sophisticated problems would be more efficient and easier. A lot of algorithms for data analytics can also be implemented to fully dissect and process the gathered data.



You really are clueless.. 

You dont have a clue about anything...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 18, 2015)

greyviper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > greyviper said:
> ...



SO tell me, How are these Liquid Salt Reactors (which all the mirrors are aimed at)  going to generate steam for power generation?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2015)

Well, since the majority of the solar plants going in are PV, doesn't look to me to be a problem.


----------



## elektra (Feb 24, 2015)

greyviper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > greyviper said:
> ...


According to your AGW theory, that reflected heat would get trapped by the CO2?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2015)

Get the science right, silly girl. The heat that is trapped is not reflected sunlight, it is energy obsorbed by the earth and re-emitted as longwave infrared.


----------



## elektra (Feb 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Get the science right, silly girl. The heat that is trapped is not reflected sunlight, it is energy obsorbed by the earth and re-emitted as longwave infrared.


What is "obsorbed"?

Sunlight consists of "longwave infrared". Idiot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 24, 2015)

elektra said:


> greyviper said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



He doesn't even understand his own religious dogma. He has no ability to understand simply black-body radiation or how it is absorbed and then re-emitted or reflected by CO2.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 25, 2015)

rdean said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > The *World* GDP is 67 Trillion. The IEA just wants to bankrupt everyone.
> ...




Pissing money down the toilet is not an "investment."


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 25, 2015)

Flopper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.
> ...



Oh, well, in that case it's a bargain!

NOT!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 25, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



And 90% of it will be done by the home owner or private utilities. Either way they will have a choice to either go solar or coal. I bet solar wins!


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 25, 2015)

Matthew said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Only if the government subsidizes it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.  Great deal for the taxpayers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2015)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents.* Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.*

*Pattycake, solar, before President Obama's second term is ended, will be cheaper than dirty coal. And the utilities will be installing solar and wind on the basis of economics. With or without subsidies. Cut out the depletion allowance of coal, a subsidy, and solar is already cheaper than coal.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 25, 2015)

Matthew said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Solar increases the use if coal, you need coal to make solar panels. Coal consumption goes up, cial wins.

The public loses, a $36 trillion dollar loss.


----------



## elektra (Feb 25, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents.* Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.*
> 
> *Pattycake, solar, before President Obama's second term is ended, will be cheaper than dirty coal. And the utilities will be installing solar and wind on the basis of economics. With or without subsidies. Cut out the depletion allowance of coal, a subsidy, and solar is already cheaper than coal.*


The investment banks make the loans, $36 trillion worth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 25, 2015)

Matthew said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Right up until it snows and they are without heat, lights. water, etc...... and they realize they have been scammed..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 25, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents.* Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.*
> 
> *Pattycake, solar, before President Obama's second term is ended, will be cheaper than dirty coal. And the utilities will be installing solar and wind on the basis of economics. With or without subsidies. Cut out the depletion allowance of coal, a subsidy, and solar is already cheaper than coal.*



The NY Slimes lies again... love the propaganda they are spewing..

Even the IEA admits that solar is above 22.3 cents per kilowatt hour..


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2015)

LInk, asshole, link!


----------



## elektra (Feb 26, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LInk, asshole, link!


Quote the post, asshole, Quote the post!

Hypocrite.


----------



## elektra (Feb 9, 2016)

36 trillion dollars, just saying the price has gone up, this an old thread.


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

Some folks are today, questioning, forgetting, the amount of money that the Wind and Solar power industry is demanding so I thought a bump would remind folks.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2016)

Delta4Embassy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > IEA calls for 36 trillion in clean energy funds - Jun. 12 2012
> ...


No, that is not what is being said by the climate scientists at all. What they are saying is that we have passed the point where we will have to deal with the effects of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. How severe will those effects be? We don't know, but we are already seeing effects in the fires in our forests and many other effects, also.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Effects they can't prove! LOL rocks. GHG's with no validation.


----------



## Judicial review (May 15, 2016)

California is a desert.


----------



## whitehall (May 15, 2016)

The Hussein administration tried to support solar energy corporations but they failed. Wind turbines seem to be a migratory bird killing joke. So what would the 36 trillion confiscated taxpayer dollars accomplish?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> Some folks are today, questioning, forgetting, the amount of money that the Wind and Solar power industry is demanding so I thought a bump would remind folks.


Here is a chart from  From Hall and Day (2009) that addresses that.





What that chart is saying is that if you use domestic oil or nuclear power, for example, to build windmills, you would gain more energy output at a lower cost for energy, than just burning the oil or uranium.


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks are today, questioning, forgetting, the amount of money that the Wind and Solar power industry is demanding so I thought a bump would remind folks.
> ...


???? Your chart says literally,

"_The EROI of most "green" energy sources, such as photovoltaics, is presently low."_

Energy return is low! Per investment! You do not understand what that means. Little energy for big investment!

Further to highlight you lack of understanding, you do not build Wind Turbines or Solar with Nuclear Energy, you need Coke, from coal. 

And how about a, LINK!


----------



## bripat9643 (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Actually, they can be made from aluminium, but that requires massive amounts of electrical power.


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Actually, they can be made from aluminium, but that requires massive amounts of electrical power.


The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, they can be made from aluminium, but that requires massive amounts of electrical power.
> ...



No, coke isn't used in the process to make aluminum.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 15, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



But it is used in creating the kilns, electrodes, and base salts of the brine water mix... MAG Corp had massive magnesium vats in SLC, Ut on the Great Salt Lake...  Stank like hell and it is massively energy intensive..


----------



## bripat9643 (May 15, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



The buildings are also made with plenty of steel.  As is most of the equipment, trucks, loaders, etc.


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> ???? Your chart says literally,
> 
> "_The EROI of most "green" energy sources, such as photovoltaics, is presently low."_
> 
> ...


That's right the energy return of wind is low. "Low" is a relative term. Look at the chart again. Domestic oil is even lower. Nuclear, photovoltaics, tar sand oil are also lower in energy return. You need electricity to run the machinery to build the windmill. Any source of electricity will do. Nuclear is just an example. As far as coal, it's one of the cheapest elemental resources. What is your problem with it?

As far as the source of the chart, I gave it as Hall and Day (2009). Here is a table with more recent data by Hall and others.
EROI of different fuels and the implications for society


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.


You are still guessing about technology. You don't need coke for aluminium. Yes, steel is a high energy cost, but the coal is cheap. There are many other materials that are extremely expensive such as the generator magnets made of a rare earth, niobium. 

All of those costs are included in the EROEI of a windmill. You don't need to keep guessing.


----------



## Kosh (May 16, 2016)

elektra said:


> $ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.



They already do that, just look at all the failed energy companies under Obama that the (D)'s profited from..

It is just another way to redistribute wealth on a global scale..

Proving once again that AGW is bunk!


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.
> ...


I am partially wrong, we do need Coke to produce Aluminium, but it is Petroleum Coke, I did not realize there are two types of Coke. The anodes used to smelt alumina are made of Petroleum Coke. You simply can not make wind turbines without Coke, from Coal and Coke from Petroleum.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.
> ...


Well, I am guessing, but guessing based on my experience working with metals. Now I have a question, there is a Carbon Liner used in alumina smelting. Is that Carbon Liner made of carbon from Coal or Coke, or is that carbon liner a petroleum product?

It takes a lot of searching to figure out the industrial processes. It goes beyond simply looking at a wikipedia page. Care to take a shot at this or are you simply trolling?

As I have recently stated, I was wrong about Coke from Coal, Coke from petroleum is used as the anode in alumina smelting. Now I have discovered something called the Carbon Liner? Where does that Carbon come from?


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.
> ...


Damn, I should never question if I am right, even when I am guessing, I am right. Coke from Coal is needed to make aluminium. Carbon lines are made from coal!

Patent US4113831 - Recovery of sodium fluoride and other chemicals from spent carbon liners



> Cathode pots of electrolytic furnaces used in the production of aluminum are lined with side carbon and bottom carbon compositions which are electrically conductive. The bottom carbon is generally of graded anthracite coal and coke bonded together with pitch



Anthracite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *Anthracite* is a hard, compact variety of coal that has a submetallic luster. It has the highest carbon content, the fewest impurities, and the highest calorific content of all types of coal except for graphite.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Most of this will be paid by investors running into solar energy and out of coal!!! Solar is now the second most installed source of energy in this country as of last year.
> 
> The big dogs at the top of the private energy sector are going to invest trillions!




Holy fuck........these progressives go through life without ever thinking about "costs". Its fascinating. This asshole is talking about "trillions" of $$ as if you get it out of a Cracker Jacks package. Ever notice that about progressives?


Why do you think there are 40 million bumper stickers coining progressives as mental cases?


How about zero chance of companies investing 36 trillion in renewables asshole.........far better chance of me giving Jennifer Lawrence a poke tonight!!

Not a single renewable energy projection decades forward shows renewables generating anything more than 7%-10% of our energy.......do the math.....out to 2050. This stuff is fantasy play by mental cases.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2016)

New York Times April 2016*........."renewable energy stumbling and bumbling towards the future"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/b...e-energy-stumbles-toward-the-future.html?_r=0






[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/solarfail.png.html]
	
[/URL]





[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Laughing%20gif.gif.html]
	
[/URL]*


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

elektra said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


I imagine any coal used in making a pot is a small cost of the entire windmill life cycle. I'm not as concerned with what the materials are as I am about the total cost from manufacture, construction, to maintenance. The chart I showed does cover all costs and favorably compares it with oil and photovoltaics.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2016)

Elektra, you stupid little ass, we don't care that coal or petroleum is used in liners or cathodes and anodes. What we care about is the massive amounts of CO2 created in generating electricity. Even the use of coke for smelting steel, and there are many smelters that use electricity, rather than coke, is irrelevant to the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere from the generation of electricity.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> New York Times April 2016*........."renewable energy stumbling and bumbling towards the future"
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/b...e-energy-stumbles-toward-the-future.html?_r=0
> 
> ...


5% and growing daily. Soon to be 10%, then 20%, then 40%, you see how it goes. And then your laughing ass will be laughing out the other end.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Your chart states the opposite and us not very accurate, but it does show wind and solar are much more expensive then fossil fuels and nuclear power.

And again, where is the link.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Elektra, you stupid little ass, we don't care that coal or petroleum is used in liners or cathodes and anodes. What we care about is the massive amounts of CO2 created in generating electricity. Even the use of coke for smelting steel, and there are many smelters that use electricity, rather than coke, is irrelevant to the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere from the generation of electricity.


No smelter get away with not using Coke, post one if you like, otherwise this will be the 30th time in a row you have failed to support your filthy lies. I even bet it will not be as easy as PIE.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

elektra said:


> Your chart states the opposite and us not very accurate, but it does show wind and solar are much more expensive then fossil fuels and nuclear power.
> 
> And again, where is the link.


I gave the link in post 132.
You are reading it wrong. The data in post 132 shows the EROEI:
Wind 18  (higher)
Nuclear 5 to 15(lower)
Photovoltaic 6 to 12(lower)
Domestic oil and gas 11 (lower)


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Your chart states the opposite and us not very accurate, but it does show wind and solar are much more expensive then fossil fuels and nuclear power.
> ...



132? I missed it, but will read it, and respond, thanks, that will take a bit of time.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Your chart states the opposite and us not very accurate, but it does show wind and solar are much more expensive then fossil fuels and nuclear power.
> ...


I think you are misreading the article, if I quote from the bottom it seems to contradict what you are stating and believe.

EROI of different fuels and the implications for society



> Alternatives such as photovoltaics and wind turbines are unlikely to be nearly as cheap energetically or economically as past oil and gas when backup costs are considered. In addition there are increasing costs everywhere pertaining to potential climate changes and other pollutants. Any transition to solar energies would require massive investments of fossil fuels. Despite many claims to the contrary—from oil and gas advocates on the one hand and solar advocates on the other—we see no easy solution to these issues when EROI is considered. If any resolution to these problems is possible it is probable that it would have to come at least as much from an adjustment of society's aspirations for increased material affluence and an increase in willingness to share as from technology.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

elektra said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


I don't quite understand what he is getting at.  I bold faced the operative word below:
_"Alternatives such as photovoltaics and wind turbines are unlikely to be nearly as cheap energetically or economically as *past *oil and gas when backup costs are considered." _​He is comparing photovoltaics and wind turbines today to *past *oil and gas. Today's oil and gas have a lower EROI, and that makes wind a better option. 

However, I think I learned something. Just because the EROI is more favorable, doesn't mean that it's cheaper. It only means that it is a more energy efficient technology. At today's low cost of oil, I wouldn't be surprised if oil would be cheaper energy source than wind until it rises to maybe $100 a barrel again even though it has a worse EROI.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Oil, is not used to produce electricity. Nor is diesel. 

Wind is not cheap, and wind is not available when we need it, neither wind nor solar can be counted on in emergencies or to supply electricity to industry. 

With a $36 Trillion dollar price tag, it is going to make a lot of people real rich, just not me, but we will pay for it, with higher electric bills.

If you look into spain, you will find that solar and wind failed there. They are about broke, by the same amount they spent on Green, Clean, Renewable, Sustainable Energy, which technically speaking is none of those.


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2016)

Okay, let's look into Spain and alternative energy sources.

*Renewable energy in Spain*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Renewable Energy in Spain*



*Renewable Energy (RE)
RE as % of Gross Final Energy Consumption.* 16.2% (2014)
*Target for above.* 20.0% (2020)
*Renewable Electricity
Percentage electricity generated by RE.* 42.8% (2014)
*RE generated / Total electricity generation.* 111,459/266,867 GWh Net(2014)[1]
*Record % RE covered electricity consumption*
64.2% (24/9/12

wind only)[2]
*Installed capacity (2015)[3]
Wind Power* 23 GW
*Bio Energy* 0.75 GW
*Solar Power* 7 GW
*Hydro Power* 20.3 GW
*Geothermal* 0 GW
*Total* 51.1 GW
*Country Notes*

One of the worldleaders in windpower generation and turbine manufacturing.

Europes second largest total windpower capacity after Germany.
*Electricity from Renewable Sources in Spain* represented 42.8% of electricity demand coverage during 2014. The country has a very large wind power capability built up over many years and is one of the world leaders in wind power generation.

Initially Spain also positioned itself as a European leader in Solar power, by 2007-2010 the country was second only to Germany in installed capacity, however other countries (Italy in particular) have since leapfrogged Spanish development. By 2015 solar power in Spain though significant produced less than a third of that of wind power in 2015.

Spain has set the target of generating 20% of all its energy needs from renewable energy sources by 2020.[4] By the end of 2014 Spain had reached a level of 16.2% of all its energy needs from renewable energy sources.[5]

The story of renewable energy development in Spain is both a mixed and unfinished one. Under previous subsidies the country expanded its renewable base rapidly and helped established a domestic industry in both wind turbine and solar energy. However support was drastically cut back following the global financial crisis and new installations stagnated between 2012 and 2015. The debts incurred during the boom period have led to tougher and retrospective revisions of contracts to providers of renewable energy reducing returns considerably. In being one of the first-to-market countries, Spain faces the challenge of powerful competitors from countries such as Denmark, Germany and China and ironically a cheaper and more mature renewable energy sector which Spain itself helped to pioneer.

In 2015 solar power suddenly demonstrated a possible way through the impasse. The continued fall in prices for solar systems and Spain's abundant sunshine led to prices for solar power reaching grid price parity. Suddenly there was the potential for sustained and spontaneous growth in solar installations in Spain as households and producers could produce power more economically. However the Spanish government introduced what has been dubbed the worlds first "sun tax" on solar installations making them economically less viable as well as draconian fines (up to 60 million Euros) for anyone not complying with the tax.

The tax has proved highly controversial. On the one hand the government has argued that those generating their own power still rely on the national grid for power backup and so should be liable for contributing to the cost. On the other hand, the solar industry has argued that the government is simply trying to protect the centralised established power producers who's revenues would be threatened by this competiitve solar threat. Environmentalists have criticised the tax for artificially blocking Spain from continuing its long standing movement to renewable energy production.

Whatever the merits of both arguments, the controversy can only become more heightened as the price of solar energy continues to fall and if PV solar power installed capacity in Spain were to continue sliding down the EU league from 12th position in 2014 (102.9 kW per 1000 inhabitants). In the same year in terms of wind energy production Spain was much stronger in 3rd position (495 kW per1000 inhabitants).
********************************************************

Not quite the way you described it.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

elektra said:


> Wind is not cheap, and wind is not available when we need it, neither wind nor solar can be counted on in emergencies or to supply electricity to industry.
> 
> With a $36 Trillion dollar price tag, it is going to make a lot of people real rich, just not me, but we will pay for it, with higher electric bills.
> 
> If you look into spain, you will find that solar and wind failed there. They are about broke, by the same amount they spent on Green, Clean, Renewable, Sustainable Energy, which technically speaking is none of those.


We will never run out of oil. The problem is that it is becoming less and less energy efficient at extracting it, and the costs of extracting it will become higher and higher until it is no longer feasible. 

One thing the EROEI shows is that even if the pollution from burning it stays the same for the next decades, the pollution from extracting it from the ground will become higher and higher.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> We will never run out of oil. The problem is that it is becoming less and less energy efficient at extracting it, and the costs of extracting it will become higher and higher until it is no longer feasible.
> 
> One thing the EROEI shows is that even if the pollution from burning it stays the same for the next decades, the pollution from extracting it from the ground will become higher and higher.


And considering Crude Oil is required to manufacture Wind Turbines and Solar Panels............

And we do not burn Crude Oil to produce electricity


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Okay, let's look into Spain and alternative energy sources.
> 
> Not quite the way you described it.


Spain's Green Disaster a Lesson for America - Finance - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com


> Calzada, an economist, studied Spain's green technology program and found that each green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry job cost $1.3 million to create.
> 
> "President Zapatero, for example, when he came in to power, said he knew, 'he knew' that solar energy was the future," Calzada said. "He 'knew' this, so he put all the public money and investment into this model."
> 
> ...



Obama-Backed Green Energy Company Goes Bankrupt — After Getting Billions From Taxpayers



> The Spanish green energy company Abengoa has filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. after getting billions of dollars from the Obama administration to build solar power and biofuels plants.
> 
> Abengoa, which has gotten $2.7 billion in federal subsidies, filed for U.S. bankruptcy protection after already filing for bankruptcy in Spain. In U.S. bankruptcy court, Abengoa can get more favorable terms, such as “the so-called automatic stay that halts lawsuits and prevents creditors from seizing assets,” according to The Wall Street Journal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2016)

The Christian News?  Really?  Do you go there often? Are you a devout Christian?  Does it color your intellect?  Do you reject global warming because it shows the powers once relegated to your deity can be duplicated by humans?  Is that the real problem?


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Christian News?  Really?  Do you go there often? Are you a devout Christian?  Does it color your intellect?  Do you reject global warming because it shows the powers once relegated to your deity can be duplicated by humans?  Is that the real problem?


Oh, my bad, I forgot you are a bigot, here you go;

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/energy/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable_419853_7.pdf



> In table 3 we summarize the results achieved in terms of employment, subsidies and investment in the three main renewable industries. Since 2000, the renewable subsidies have created less than 50,200 jobs.54 This amounts to 0.2% of Spain’s workforce and 0.25% of Spain´s employed workforce. We can see that the average subsidy per worker added in these three sources of renewable energies is more than half a million Euros (€571,138), ranging from €542,825 per worker added in or by the mini-hydro sector and two-thirds of a million Euros per worker added in or by the photovoltaic sector, to well over €1 million per worker added in or by the wind industry.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Christian News?  Really?  Do you go there often? Are you a devout Christian?  Does it color your intellect?  Do you reject global warming because it shows the powers once relegated to your deity can be duplicated by humans?  Is that the real problem?


How about fraud in Spain's Solar Power Industry? Solar power at nighttime. 

Spanish nighttime solar energy fraud ‘unlikely in UK’


> Authorities in Spain have launched an investigation into solar energy installations that have been selling electricity apparently generated at night.
> 
> The Spanish government called on the National Energy Commission (CNE) to look into the matter after a newspaper investigation discovered irregularities in the times at which solar energy was being generated.
> 
> Spanish newspaper _El Mundo_ found that between November and January, 4500 megawatt hours (MWh) of solar energy were sold to the electricity grid between midnight and seven in the morning


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Christian News?  Really?  Do you go there often? Are you a devout Christian?  Does it color your intellect?  Do you reject global warming because it shows the powers once relegated to your deity can be duplicated by humans?  Is that the real problem?


How about a dozen, would you like one dozen crick, you seem to like that number, lets see what I can do with a dozen! Like you claimed you could do in regards to Antarctic ice. 

Watch;

Spain’s Renewable Energy Disaster Draws to a Close



> Spain has been held up by the gullible and naïve (some might say, cynical and malign) hard-green-left as the model for our “new” energy future. Some “model”!!
> 
> The Spaniards have thrown 100s of billions of euros in subsidies at solar and wind power, and have achieved nothing but economic punishment in return.
> 
> ...


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Bloomberg, seem like a fair source, 

Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb $31 Billion of Debts



> Spain halted subsidies for renewable energy projects to help curb its budget deficit and rein in power-system borrowings backed by the state that reached 24 billion euros ($31 billion) at the end of 2011.
> 
> “What is today an energy problem could become a financial problem,” Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria said in Madrid. The government passed a decree today stopping subsidies for new wind, solar, co-generation or waste incineration plants.
> 
> The system’s debts were racked up as revenue from state-controlled prices failed to cover the cost of delivering power. Costs have swollen in the past five years because of an increase in regulated payments for the power grid, support for Spanish coal mines and subsidies for renewable energy plants.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Without subsidies, no Wind Power? NO NEW PROJECTS! In 2015!

Spain’s Green energy crippled without subsidy crutch

January 26, 2016 by Andrew Follett, 1 
Spain did not install a single new megawatt of wind power capacity last year for the first time since the 1980s.

The Spanish Wind Energy Association admitted Tuesday the country did not install any wind power last year after Spain effectively eliminated costly green energy subsidies in 2014. The installation standstill has left Spain needing to install another 6,400 megawatts of wind energy capacity to meet legally binding European Union renewable energy targets.



- See more at: Spain’s Green energy crippled without subsidy crutch


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

What is interesting in this article is the amount of money lost on the "tariff deficit", that is paying more for the electricity by the government but not passing the cost to the consumer, is this deficit is almost equal to the bailout 41 billion euros Spain received. 

If we include the subsidies and grants, we can see that Spain needed a bailout because they spent too much money on failed Wind and Solar Power. 

Will the wind in Spain blow slower on the plain? - BBC News

This policy contributed to what Spain calls its "tariff deficit" across the entire power generation sector, thought to amount to 25bn to 30bn euros.






Image captionSpain has the second largest installed wind power capacity in Europe, behind Germany
Something needed to give, and a cash-strapped Spanish government, reeling from banking and property crises that necessitated a 41bn euro bailout package from the European Union (EU) in 2012, abruptly pulled the plug on government support for its energy sector in the same year.

Not only this, but it imposed a 7% tax on all electricity generation revenues, whether renewable or not.

These measures were followed up by further retroactive cuts that could result in "subsidy reduction of about 1.2bn euros for the wind industry in 2014", says Ms Franco. "We don't really know yet what the full financial impact will be."


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

2 more stories describing the failure in spain

Total Failure: Debt-Ridden Spanish Solar Energy Company Files For Bankruptcy
*Total Failure: Debt-Ridden Spanish Solar Energy Company Files For Bankruptcy*

Sun sets on Spanish solar power dreams
*Sun sets on Spanish solar power dreams*

Published: 11 May 2014 09:22 GMT+02:00








*"The sun could be yours," the Spanish government promised in 2007, encouraging citizens to invest in solar power. Many who now wish they could give it back.*


*Planned 11% rise in power bills shocks Spain* (20 Dec 13)
Tens of thousands of indebted Spaniards have found themselves lumbered with fields full of expensive solar panels whose subsidies have been unexpectedly cut in the financial crisis.

"How do I feel? Completely fooled," said David Utiel, a 37-year-old teacher who invested in a solar plant, recalling the government's sunshine slogan


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

4 more stories to chronicle Spain's economic fail due to Green, Clean, Renewable, Sustainable Power. That makes 12, Crick

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/b...lar-company-abengoa-faces-reckoning.html?_r=0

Rep. Pompeo Investigates Failing Obama-Backed Green Energy Company

In Spain, Solar Energy Storage is Worse Than Nuclear Spillage | Planetsave

Spain’s Green Energy Problems


----------



## Crick (May 17, 2016)

The Wikipedia article I posted discussed some of the problems in Spains alternative energy development. I see nothing in your links that wasn't discussed there and most of your sources are obviously biased rightwing blogs.  Alternative energy still makes up a large percentage of Spain's energy production and is still increasing.  That there will be bumps along the road when converting infrastructure at this scale is unavoidable.  Suck it up. Perhaps I should post articles about every oil spill, blown out well and bankruptcy in the history of fossil fuel.  There's no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Wikipedia article I posted discussed some of the problems in Spains alternative energy development. I see nothing in your links that wasn't discussed there and most of your sources are obviously biased rightwing blogs.  Alternative energy still makes up a large percentage of Spain's energy production and is still increasing.  That there will be bumps along the road when converting infrastructure at this scale is unavoidable.  Suck it up. Perhaps I should post articles about every oil spill, blown out well and bankruptcy in the history of fossil fuel.  There's no such thing as a free lunch.


Ha, ha, ha, cricket, the information is all accurate no matter where it is from. 

The New York Times is a left wing rag, hardly a blog and hardly right wing, neither is the Canadian Free Press, and of course The Local es is from spain. Planet Save is obviously left wind environmental wackos, BBC is a right wing blog?

And Bloomberg? Right Wing Blog?

CFACT - ?? Never heard of it but I used it.

Stop these things?? Never heard of them, got proof they are right wing, or are you going to display more bigotry?

And of course the best one www.michigan.gov hardly right wing.

So you are wrong 7 out of 10 times?


----------



## Crick (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> the information is all accurate no matter where it is from



Good to know that's what you believe.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > New York Times April 2016*........."renewable energy stumbling and bumbling towards the future"
> ...




Right.........just like you said 5 years ago everybody would be driving an electric car by now!!


Hmmm............well maybe by the mid-22nd century but zero chance of renewable energy being more than 10% by the middle of the 21st century. Thinking otherwise? Pure fantasy. In fact, by 2040, most of the 10% number will be geothermal..........lmao..........solar and wind are growing, but at a snails pace!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/China%20coal.gif.html]
	
[/URL]

>>India's graph displays similar growth btw<<



Coal and natural gas are going to dominate for the rest of this century. Even the Obama administrations EIA concurs!!! Every reputable organization projects fossil fuel domination for decades from now......only green energy companies project these stoopid numbers embraced by the Disney crowd only.

Oh.......and by the middle of the century, wind and solar will be relics of a former era..........looked upon the way we look upon the CB radio now!!


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Wikipedia article I posted discussed some of the problems in Spains alternative energy development. I see nothing in your links that wasn't discussed there and most of your sources are obviously biased rightwing blogs.  Alternative energy still makes up a large percentage of Spain's energy production and is still increasing.  That there will be bumps along the road when converting infrastructure at this scale is unavoidable.  Suck it up. Perhaps I should post articles about every oil spill, blown out well and bankruptcy in the history of fossil fuel.  There's no such thing as a free lunch.




With Spain and Portugal I agree they are real big in green energy, here down south they have opened up a bunch of Bio mass company's, basically huge saw mills, turning trees into saw dust then pellets and shipping them to Europe.


.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 17, 2016)

PS......here is the bottom line............

Have you ever met a progressive that is concerned about "costs"?? I haven't. Its never part of their equation in terms of public policy.........not sure any of these bozo's have EVER balanced a check book.

For the rest of the world, "costs" do matter.........which is *exactly *why fossil fuels will continue to dominate for decades.( see Germany's return to coal). Forgetting everything else..........putting the US coal industry out of business would "cost" over 2 million people their jobs. Not a factor to the AGW k00ks.......but quite a big factor to everybody else with reasoned judgment.

The AGW k00ks keep talking about their green fantasies which don't at all conform with reality........lol........like the 1.5 trucks that are sold every year ( compared to 110,000 EV's ) are going out of style next year!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 17, 2016)

Im laughing............another thread blown to shit by skeptics.

Lock this shit.........


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Wikipedia article I posted ..........


Joke


----------



## elektra (Feb 6, 2017)

Has anybody mentioned the cost of Solar and Wind, lately. This OP is old, I bet the cost is much more, today.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 6, 2017)

Massive cuts coming to EPA Elektra.......feeling that tingle up my leg!!


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 6, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The Wikipedia article I posted discussed some of the problems in Spains alternative energy development. I see nothing in your links that wasn't discussed there and most of your sources are obviously biased rightwing blogs.  Alternative energy still makes up a large percentage of Spain's energy production and is still increasing.  That there will be bumps along the road when converting infrastructure at this scale is unavoidable.  Suck it up. Perhaps I should post articles about every oil spill, blown out well and bankruptcy in the history of fossil fuel.  There's no such thing as a free lunch.
> ...


So govt is in the deforestation business because greens in EU have screwed up their grid but dont you dare have a wood burning stove


----------



## elektra (Feb 6, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> So govt is in the deforestation business because greens in EU have screwed up their grid but dont you dare have a wood burning stove


I think they are in the deforestation business because burning wood creates a lot of energy and it is something else they can add to the already weak portfolio of electricity producers called Renewable, Green, Energy. They got to add something to make it to their goal of stating 33% of the USA's power comes from Renewables, after all, Solar and Wind will never make that claim on their own.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2017)

elektra said:


> Has anybody mentioned the cost of Solar and Wind, lately. This OP is old, I bet the cost is much more, today.



Photographer: Kimimasa Mayama
*Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels*

*Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels*
Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
by 
Tom Randall
April 6, 2016, 2:00 AM PDT


Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).  

"We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."

Here's what's shaping power markets, in six charts from BNEF:

*Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1*

*




*

*Looking very good for wind and solar*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2017)

*Wind and solar are our cheapest electricity sources – now what do we do?*

*Wind and Solar Costs Are Plummeting: Now What Do We Do?*

by 3p Contributor on Monday, Jan 2nd, 2017  CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT


*



*

*By Mike O’Boyle*

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy: In investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies, renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean-versus-cost on its head. And in 2017, we’ll be asking: *How much* *can we save* by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without federal subsidies like tax credits.

*What does levelized cost of energy mean?*
Lazard uses LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component – capital expenditure to build, operations and maintenance, and fuel costs to run – spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

*How wind and solar are winning the day*
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.






Large-scale solar’s cost declines are even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.






*Wind and solar, winning all the way, and getting cheaper every day.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 6, 2017)

yea, $36 Trillion dollars cheaper!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2017)

Solar and Wind: How Low Can They Go?

For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.

That’s because right now, in much of the United States, wind and solar are the cheapest form of power available, according to a new report from investment bank Lazard.

Analysts found that new solar and wind installations are cheaper than a new coal-fired power installation just about everywhere — even without subsidies. The cost of renewables continues to fall rapidly.

*Solar and wind are getting really, really cheap.*
Since just last year, the cost of utility-scale solar has dropped 10 percent, and the cost of residential solar dropped a whopping 26 percent — and that is coming after years of price declines. The cost of offshore wind declined by 22 percent since last year, though it still remains more expensive than onshore wind.

The Lazard report is just the latest chapter in the success story of renewable energy. Since 2009, the cost of solar has been cut nearly in half. The cost of wind has fallen by two-thirds. The precipitous drop in price is reminiscent of shrinking costs for personal computers. Wind and, particularly solar, have yet to level off. New technologies and cheaper materials will continue to drive down costs in the years ahead.











*LOL*


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 7, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Has anybody mentioned the cost of Solar and Wind, lately. This OP is old, I bet the cost is much more, today.
> ...



What does your bullshit chart even measure?  There's no explanation of the vertical axis


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

This whole clean energy meme that the warmers have latched onto highlights a glaring logical disconnect....they believe that climate change is going to result in more extreme weather...more and bigger storms, weather on steroids....assuming that they are right..which they aren't...but assuming that they were....how well do you suppose wind and solar would hold up to extreme weather?


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

They'll hold up to the weather they were built to hold up to - same as oil or gas power plants.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> They'll hold up to the weather they were built to hold up to - same as oil or gas power plants.




Right.....which is why they fail at present every tine the wind picks up....did you see where brussels blacked out...renewable central...in the dark....


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

"The sudden blackout affected the Evere, Schaarbeek and Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region, Belgian gas and electricity network provider Sibelga has confirmed. It said the cause of the power failure was not immediately clear."

"The incident was_ “not a terrorist attack,”_ Belgian high-voltage transmission system operator Elia tweeted, but instead _“a technical error in one of the high-voltage substations.”_ The substations have already been fixed and the power will be gradually restored, it said."

Media freaks out over Brussels blackout as part of city plunges into darkness (PHOTOS)

You stupid liar


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> The sudden blackout affected the Evere, Schaarbeek and Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region, Belgian gas and electricity network provider Sibelga has confirmed. It said the cause of the power failure was not immediately clear.
> 
> The incident was_ “not a terrorist attack,”_ Belgian high-voltage transmission system operator Elia tweeted, but instead _“a technical error in one of the high-voltage substations.”_ The substations have already been fixed and the power will be gradually restored, it said.
> Media freaks out over Brussels blackout as part of city plunges into darkness (PHOTOS)
> ...



Just goes to show how unstable renewables render the infrastructure.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

Renwables had nothing to do with it you liar


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

right...and they didn't result in the blackouts in australia either....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> Renwables had nothing to do with it you liar


Totally clueless...
They have everything to do with instability of the grid and massive fluctuation swings..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Renwables had nothing to do with it you liar
> ...




If they believe their own bullshit regarding climate change and the claim that extreme weather is going to be the new norm...how stupid would you have to be to depend on such delicate and touchy infrastructure as wind and solar...they simply couldn't be engineered to stand up to extremes in weather...hell, a single misplaced hail storm with hail the size of softballs could wipe out entire sections of a grid....


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

Here is the homepage of that company whose equipment failure caused the blackout.  See if you can find their wind and solar facilities

Homepage


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


LOL  So, another denier that cannot read a simple chart. The y axis is billions of dollars invested, the x the year. Sheesh, that is one damned simple chart.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > They'll hold up to the weather they were built to hold up to - same as oil or gas power plants.
> ...


Link


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Most of this will be paid by investors running into solar energy and out of coal!!! Solar is now the second most installed source of energy in this country as of last year.
> 
> The big dogs at the top of the private energy sector are going to invest trillions!


big deal it's still a tiny fraction of our energy production

If you people want to get serious about emission free power then think nuclear because solar and wind will not be able to supply our needs


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



and what's the return on that investment?

It is beyond stupid to invest so heavily into power generation that produces 25% or less of its rated capacity (wind) or that only works part of the time and at certain latitudes (solar) or that require huge tracts of land far away from populated areas of use (wind and solar)

It makes far more sense to invest in a power generation source that runs at 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365 and can be used anywhere


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Nuclear? Far too expensive. And what are you going to do with the nuclear waste? Until that is solved, no reason to build new nukes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

The cost per kw of the wind and solar electricity is far lower than that of nuclear. It is far quicker to install, and with grid scale storage, can be 24/7. And that is what matters to the consumer. Cost per kw.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear? Far too expensive. And what are you going to do with the nuclear waste? Until that is solved, no reason to build new nukes.



only the current obsolete nuclear is expensive

We shut down our nuclear power program after a bad Hollywood movie that's how much sense we have

Even in the 60's the integral fast reactor was proven to be far superior to the reactors we have in service today not to mention the fact that they were self limiting and recycled 90% of their own fuel and a prototype molten salt reactor ran for years as well but the government scare campaign worked and now we are wasting money on wind which simply does not work as the failed wind industries of both the UK and Germany have proven


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> The cost per kw of the wind and solar electricity is far lower than that of nuclear. It is far quicker to install, and with grid scale storage, can be 24/7. And that is what matters to the consumer. Cost per kw.


what's the grid scale storage cost?

Don't forget to add that in to the price per KW
But you won't as your insistence of calculating the cost of wind by rated nominal capacity and not actual output has shown


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

If we didn't shove our heads up our asses by shutting down our nuclear program we would already have been leaps and bounda ahead of the rest of the world in the production of emission free power

Safer, Cheaper Nuclear Power


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

*Well now, here is where wind has not failed, and is being increased as we post. And those ultra-Liberal Texans are adding solar by the gigawatt as we post. LOL*

The Great Texas Wind Power Boom







The Roscoe Wind Farm in Roscoe, Texas, owned/operated by E.ON Climate & Renewables is one of the world's largest wind farms. It has 634 wind turbines and a total installed capacity of 782 MW. Source: Recharge News

It was a predictable result, and one that confirms a widely held misconception on Green Energy leadership. My Google search just yielded: "wind power California"...7.3 million responses...."wind power Texas"...5.6 million responses.

But, you should know that Texas produces about four times more wind power than 3rd place California and three times more than 2nd place Iowa. Pretty amazing for Texas, an energy juggernaut that also supplies about 28% of our natural gas and 37% of our crude oil. Texas has surged its wind power capacity 80% to 18,000 megawatts since 2010, with actual wind generation more than doubling over that time.

There are more than 10,000 wind turbines in Texas, and at times last winter, wind supplied 40-50% of the state’s electricity. The Great Texas Wind Boom has all come without much help from legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who backed out of his grandiose wind plans in the state. 


Texas now produces more wind power alone than 25 U.S. states produce from all power sources combined!

Although you can read "6 Reasons Why Texas Leads the Nation in Wind Power" for yourself, one advantage for Texas is that it's the only U.S. state with its own power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which covers about 75% of the state.
.........................................................................................................................................

"Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."

Yet, more large-scale transmission projects are critical for more wind because the best wind locations are generally remote from the high consuming cities. Take Texas, which spans a whopping 820 miles across and where the western half of the state is the wind haven: Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas are all in the eastern half.

Texas though wisely has a very diversified power portfolio that maintains critical reliability as more and more wind is added. A massive local supply of natural gas, for instance, can help backup Texas wind power when the wind isn't blowing. Gas peaker plants stand ready to be immediate backup power that can go from stop to full power in 10 minutes and shutdown when the wind starts blowing again.

Gas accounts for over 60% of Texas's power capacity, but has generated about 50% of the state's power. To also help flexibility, The Brattle Group advises Texas policymakers to establish "a regulatory framework that will allow the state to capture the full value of deploying grid-integrated electricity storage."

Amazon and Johnson & Johnson are two of a growing number of companies getting involved with wind power in Texas. Amazon wants to build a wind farm that will yield a million megawatt hours of electricity a year, enough to power 90,000 homes (here). For many, Texas is a model for the rest of the country. The U.S. Department of Energy’s 2015 report “Wind Vision” set a goal of getting 35% of all electricity in the country from wind in 2050, up from about 5% today.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The cost per kw of the wind and solar electricity is far lower than that of nuclear. It is far quicker to install, and with grid scale storage, can be 24/7. And that is what matters to the consumer. Cost per kw.
> ...


According to Oncor, the largest utility in Texas, the break even point for grid scale storage is $350 per kw/hr. Right now, Tesla is building and selling grid scale batteries for $250 per kw/hr, and expects the cost to decline to $100 per kw/hr by 2025. 

Because of present wasted generating capacity, Oncor states that adding significant grid storage would actually reduce the cost to the customer.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well now, here is where wind has not failed, and is being increased as we post. And those ultra-Liberal Texans are adding solar by the gigawatt as we post. LOL*
> 
> The Great Texas Wind Power Boom
> 
> ...



Once again you refuse to look at real performance and not just installed nominal capacity

Multiply all your number by at least 4 if not 6 to get the cost of the actual output to match the rated capacity then don't forget to replace your windmills every 20 years or less


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



and we'll need many millions of them and don't forget to factor in the losses of battery storage and the conversion from DC to AC power


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The cost per kw of the wind and solar electricity is far lower than that of nuclear. It is far quicker to install, and with grid scale storage, can be 24/7. And that is what matters to the consumer. Cost per kw.
> ...


You are unable to read? Cost per kw/hr delivered. And wind and solar beat nuclear hands down in that comparison. Rated versus actual output is irrelevant when making that comparison.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Sorry but real world numbers from the UK and Germany do not agree.

and don't forget to remove the tax subsidies which will not last forever as well


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Well now, here is where wind has not failed, and is being increased as we post. And those ultra-Liberal Texans are adding solar by the gigawatt as we post. LOL*
> ...


And you have to do major maintenance on coal, nukes, or natural gas in that same time period. The difference is that with a wind turbine, you just replace the old turbine with a new one, and then rebuild the old turbine. And you can do this on a wind farm without shutting down any of the other turbines. Where, with the others, you have to shut down the plant, and lose many 100's of megawatts of generating power for the duration.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Doubt that they even last out the year...then we will see how much the private sector is biting at the bullet to invest in renewables...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


They can remove the subsidies right now, and wind and solar still remain the least costly forms on new generation. Right now, solar and wind are the primary installation in new generation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


OK, you are comparing what is not doing the job in the UK and Germany with what is succeeding here in the US. LOL

Like I said, those pie in the sky ultra-Liberal Texans are installing wind and solar by the gigawatt as we post. And will continue to do so even if the subsidies are terminated.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

The UK learned their lesson and is funding a small reactor program that will be a boon to their country and their economy when after wind power fails here like it did there and we buy the British reactors because we were too stupid to invest in them urselves

Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The turbines are the same, the wind is the same so why do you expect a better outcome?

And don't forget an installed GW is really less than .25 GW in actual power


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Wind power has failed to deliver what it promised


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well now, here is where wind has not failed, and is being increased as we post. And those ultra-Liberal Texans are adding solar by the gigawatt as we post. LOL*
> 
> The Great Texas Wind Power Boom
> 
> ...



.
Your tax dollars at work subsidizing the manufacture of money losing investments.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> The UK learned their lesson and is funding a small reactor program that will be a boon to their country and their economy when after wind power fails here like it did there and we buy the British reactors because we were too stupid to invest in them urselves
> 
> Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future


Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future

As more delays beset Hinckley C, *Paul Willson,* head of innovation for power generation at WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, looks at small modular nuclear reactors

The UK is en route to becoming a global leader in small modular reactors, after chancellor George Osborne announced support for the technology through a £250m research and development programme.* A competition has since been launched by the Department for Energy & Climate Change to identify the best-value small modular reactor design for the UK*.

Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, has that 38 companies had submitted expressions of interest to participate in the competition. They are being notified whther they have been approved for the next phase. Bidders are understood to include the American groups Westinghouse and Bechtel, as well as CNNC, a Chinese state-controlled company, and a Korean-led consortium linked to the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Britain’s Rolls-Royce is also involved as part of NuScale Power, a US-led group headed by Fluor, another US engineering giant.

This scale of spending clearly demonstrates the government’s commitment to the British nuclear industry and will help secure the UK’s low-carbon energy supply. 

*Searching for the best design, are they? So, this is basic research, not a production program. And how many decades before they find that best design? Pie in the sky bullshit.*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



only on the current obsolete light water reactors that we use today

Next gen reactors are virtually maintenance free and only need be refueled every 20 or 30 years, they are walk away safe and do not need to be installed near large bodies of water, are more secure because they can be buried underground, less expensive because they can be mass produced in factories instead of built on sight, do not require the tons of concrete and steel since they run at atmosphere and not under pressure

and they will actually produce 90% or better of their rated capacity 24\7\365


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Silly ass, it is not 'expect a better outcome', it is they already have a better outcome and are moving to get an even better one by installing significantly more turbines and solar, with grid scale storage a part of the equation. In fact, Oncor estimates that adding grid scale storage would be the equivalent of adding four nukes to the Texas grid.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The UK learned their lesson and is funding a small reactor program that will be a boon to their country and their economy when after wind power fails here like it did there and we buy the British reactors because we were too stupid to invest in them urselves
> ...



the designs already exist it's just a matter of choosing one

but you would rather waste money on a power supply that only produces 25% of its installed capacity

If we hadn't shut down our nuclear program like we did we'd be decades ahead of our current position which is basically the stone age of nuclear power


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


And we can buy one of these marvels at present, where? Link please. No pie in the sky promises, a working module right now, where can a utility get one right now?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



so install more and you think installing more pieces of equipment that under perform by 75% of ratings cost effective?

There go you imagined savings


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



We could have them up and running in a decade if we so chose but we don't.  We'd rather waste money thinking wind and solar will meet our ever growing power demands


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


The designs already exist. The checks in the mail. From the 1950's. Nuclear will be so cheap that we won't even have to meter it. And it is failsafe. 

Sorry, the nuclear industries delivery on it's promises leave a lot to be desired. Every damned nuke has comes in over cost by several factors, and, usually, way behind schedule.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

And we can buy one of these marvels at present, where? Link please. No pie in the sky promises, a working module right now, where can a utility get one right now?

Pie in the sky. Not buying it until one is built and demonstrated to be feasable, both in safety and cost. Until then, we know what works and costs the least, and it is not nuclear.,


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It doesn't say "invested," dumbass.  You just assume that's what it means.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



you can't think beyond obsolete light water reactors.

The promise of a self limiting reactor has already been fulfilled but the program was shut down because idiots like John Kerry thought a Hollywood movie was reality

We ran an IFR for years with multiple shut down runs and the design was proven to be self limiting.  If we had stayed committed to nuclear that design would be far more refined and newer designs would be available.  But we are unable to even consider anything but an obsolete light water reactor for construction because the NRC is petrified

It's our own fault and we need to rectify it instead of thinking that wind power can deliver


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> And we can buy one of these marvels at present, where? Link please. No pie in the sky promises, a working module right now, where can a utility get one right now?
> 
> Pie in the sky. Not buying it until one is built and demonstrated to be feasable, both in safety and cost. Until then, we know what works and costs the least, and it is not nuclear.,


yes it's better to waste money on a power supply that under performs it's capacity by 75%

and BTW that has already been proven even though you deny it


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

No, I am not denying it. What I am saying, and you have made no attempt to disprove, is that even doing that, it is less costly than nuclear in the form of delivered kw/hrs. And it is considerably cheaper to build. And it is an existing technology, not pie in the sky. We have been bit several times already by the unmet promises of the nuclear industry. No reason to be bit again.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> No, I am not denying it. What I am saying, and you have made no attempt to disprove, is that even doing that, it is less costly than nuclear in the form of delivered kw/hrs. And it is considerably cheaper to build. And it is an existing technology, not pie in the sky. We have been bit several times already by the unmet promises of the nuclear industry. No reason to be bit again.


and the only nuclear power you are using as a comparison in the obsolete light water reactor

and if you want to talk unmet promises take a look at wind in the UK and Germany yet you are damn keen to repeat their blunders


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am not denying it. What I am saying, and you have made no attempt to disprove, is that even doing that, it is less costly than nuclear in the form of delivered kw/hrs. And it is considerably cheaper to build. And it is an existing technology, not pie in the sky. We have been bit several times already by the unmet promises of the nuclear industry. No reason to be bit again.
> ...




Don't forget australia....living in black out after blackout...


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Solar and Wind: How Low Can They Go?
> 
> For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.
> 
> ...


except for 2016, in which nuclear power was the largest new generating capacity. All the Wind Mills and Solar panels installed last year do not equal the output of Watts Bar II, at that, Watts Bar II will operate for the next 50 years. We will be lucky to get 8 years of any Wind Turbine installed last year, the same for the solar panels.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> No, I am not denying it. What I am saying, and you have made no attempt to disprove, is that even doing that, it is less costly than nuclear in the form of delivered kw/hrs. And it is considerably cheaper to build. And it is an existing technology, not pie in the sky. We have been bit several times already by the unmet promises of the nuclear industry. No reason to be bit again.


Wrong again Old Liar, it is not less costly, that is why it is funded by the Government, everything having to do with Wind Turbines and Solar Panels is funded by the government. Even the land is given by the government or paid for with my tax dollars. 

"unmet promises"? No other industry has suffered as many regulations and frivolous lawsuits as Nuclear Power. Yet, Nuclear power has increased in the USA. Nuclear Power has delivered on its promises, it is simply a shame that the government and people like Old Crock have stolen much, through lawsuits and regulations, which drive the cost through the roof. 

It cost over $10,000 simply to hire an employee they need to do maintenance at a Nuclear power plant. It takes typically at least 1 month to conduct the security background check and over a week of safety classes. Classes that have nothing to do with Nuclear power although there are some specific to nuclear power. 

But Old Crock knows nothing about this, or is willfully ignorant. 

For some trades, in Nuclear Power, we are required to be certified for our job, at the cost of thousands of dollars. Ultrasound techs require a $15,000 certification. Yet that same tech does not need that certification to inspect the bolts on the base of Wind Turbine towers, which break? 

Unmet? Nope, Nuclear Power is simply a great example of how the Leftists fight to make America weak.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Light Water Reactors are far from obsolete. If anything Light Water Reactors have proven themselves reliable and sustainable, beyond what was believed when they were first designed. Light Water Reactors Output has increased in the last 10 years, it has not decreased. The life of the reactor has exceeded that which they expected, by decades. Reactors that the designers thought would need replacing in 20 years, operate for 40 years. 

Hardly obsolete. 

The fuel can be recycled, and used again, if anything that is where we fail. That hardly makes Light Water Reactors Obsolete.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> And we can buy one of these marvels at present, where? Link please. No pie in the sky promises, a working module right now, where can a utility get one right now?
> 
> Pie in the sky. Not buying it until one is built and demonstrated to be feasable, both in safety and cost. Until then, we know what works and costs the least, and it is not nuclear.,


$44 Trillion for Solar and Wind and you think that cost is less than Nuclear Power? That is on top of everything already spent, which is how much? Can you tell us in one simple figure the total cost spent on Solar and Wind in the last 30 years and what percentage of our power that has bought us?


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

Why don't you start with a baseline?  How much would it cost in today's dollars to replace the country's total coal and natural gas power capacity?


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> Why don't you start with a baseline?  How much would it cost in today's dollars to replace the country's total coal and natural gas power capacity?


Okay, let us take a look at your comment.
1. The country's total coal and natural gas power supply does not need replacing, it is already built. 
2. The Solar and Wind proposed will not replace coal or natural gas.
3. Solar and Wind requires a complete re-engineering of our electrical grid.

In today's dollars, spending the money on Solar and Wind, you will never replace coal and natural gas, all that will be done is you will turn the USA into a Third World Nation. You can not replace Coal and Natural gas with something that does not work. 

How many three legged horses will it take to replace your car? The question is no different.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Solar and Wind: How Low Can They Go?
> ...


Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia

The *Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant* is a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear reactor used for electric power generation. It is located on a 1,770-acre (7.2 km²) site in Rhea County, Tennessee, near Spring City, between the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville. Watts Bar supplies enough electricity for about 1,200,000 households in the Tennessee Valley.

The plant, construction of which began in 1973, has two Westinghouse pressurized water reactor units: Unit 1, completed in 1996, and Unit 2, completed in 2015. Unit 1 has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts. Unit 2 has a capacity of 1,165 megawatts. Unit 2 is the most recent civilian reactor to come on-line in the United States and the first new reactor to enter service in the United States after a 20 year hiatus.

*Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions*




*Source: *U.S. Energy Information Administration, _Electric Power Monthly_
Republished March 2, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to correct an error in the text.

Electric generating facilities expect to add more than 26 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale generating capacity to the power grid during 2016. Most of these additions come from three resources: solar (9.5 GW), natural gas (8.0 GW), and wind (6.8 GW), which together make up 93% of total additions. If actual additions ultimately reflect these plans, 2016 will be the first year in which utility-scale solar additions exceed additions from any other single energy source.

These values reflect reported additions and retirements, not model projections. This year, as is the case in many years, expected capacity additions in December are much higher than in any other month. This typically happens because of the expiration of federal, state, or local tax credits on December 31, or because of how respondents complete the survey. Many projects expected to begin operation sometime in 2016 are conservatively estimated for a December completion date.

Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

*Ms. Elektra, you are so full of shit. 1.16 gigawatts of electricity for Watts Bar 11. Solar, 9.5 gigawatts, wind, 6.8 gigawatts. Once again, we have someone like Silly Billy pulling stinky 'facts' out of their ass.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Ms. Elektra, you are so full of shit. 1.16 gigawatts of electricity for Watts Bar 11. Solar, 9.5 gigawatts, wind, 6.8 gigawatts. Once again, we have someone like Silly Billy pulling stinky 'facts' out of their ass.*


Solar is producing how much electricity tonight?  Tomorrow night? How much will Wind produce tomorrow? Or the next day? 

And, to point out the obvious, you are using "SCHEDULED" additions to try and make your point! How about showing us that actual amount delivered to customers! 

Scheduled Additions? Go back to your rocking chair you old fool.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Ms. Elektra, you are so full of shit. 1.16 gigawatts of electricity for Watts Bar 11. Solar, 9.5 gigawatts, wind, 6.8 gigawatts. Once again, we have someone like Silly Billy pulling stinky 'facts' out of their ass.*


I wonder what they mean by, GW? So many figures misrepresented and undefined. Here is nice figure from Old Crock's favorite link, wikipedia.
Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia

Estimated generation 17,975 GW·h

TVA's Watts Bar produces more electricity than all of the Wind and Solar combined, in Old Crock's colored picture.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 12, 2017)

elektra said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


there are too many design limitations.  LWRs have to be located near large bodies of water, and they run under pressure and are not self limiting


Those 3 reasons alone make them obsolete in comparisons to reactors that do not need huge amounts of water for cooling, run at atmosphere thus reducing the need for all the concrete and steel for containment and are walk away safe because they are self limiting


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW·h


elektra said:


> TVA's Watts Bar produces more electricity than all of the Wind and Solar combined, in Old Crock's colored picture.



9.5 and 6.8 = 16.3 GW

Watts Bar's two plants have capacities of 1.167 GW and 1.165 GW or 2.332 GW total.   Last time I checked, 16.3 was larger than 2.332, by a factor of just under 700%

A GW, by the way, is a giga-watt or a billion watts.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2017)

Crick said:


> 9.5 and 6.8 = 16.3 GW
> 
> Watts Bar's two plants have capacities of 1.167 GW and 1.165 GW or 2.332 GW total.   Last time I checked, 16.3 was larger than 2.332, by a factor of just under 700%
> 
> A GW, by the way, is a giga-watt or a billion watts.



Sure, but the industry does not use GW? GW means nothing.
From my post, which is linked, Watts Bar produces 17,975 GW·h.
That is more than the 16.3 gwh that you claim was produced by solar and wind. Last night at midnight to 1am, what did Watts Bar produce produce, 17,975 gwh, what did Wind and Solar produce last night, from midnight to 1am? Solar zero, Wind, less than half of what Wind is capable of? 1/4 of its rated output, maybe less than 1% of its output, I guess we really do not know, cause the wind did not blow everywhere last night.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2017)

Ms. Electra, you are so silly. kw is power. kw/hr is energy. 16.3 gw producing for even 1/4 of the time will produce more than 1.16 gw producing all the time. So the gw/hr of the solar and wind is greater than that of the Watts Bar 2 plant.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Ms. Electra, you are so silly. kw is power. kw/hr is energy. 16.3 gw producing for even 1/4 of the time will produce more than 1.16 gw producing all the time. So the gw/hr of the solar and wind is greater than that of the Watts Bar 2 plant.


And, how much did Renewables produce last night, from 1:00 am to 2:00 am? As much as Watts Bar or less? 

This is what Watt Bar produced,  Estimated generation 17,975 GW·h

Now show us what renewables produced in the same period, last night.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2017)

Texas' grid of tomorrow may include batteries

Sleek lithium-ion battery systems that resemble mainframe computers are poised to connect with Texas' electric grid for the first time this year as more companies seek to revolutionize the power market.

Renewable power advocates see energy storage technologies, such as industry-leading lithium-ion batteries, as the critical step toward making electricity from wind and solar more reliable and cost effective than fossil fuel or nuclear power.

North Carolina-based Duke Energy is converting a 36-megawatt battery system at its wind farm in West Texas from outdated lead-acid batteries to the more efficient lithium-ion variety, favored for electric vehicles.


Likewise, Virginia-based AES Corp. is teaming up with Texas transmission company Oncor to construct a 20-megawatt, lithium-ion battery project in Dallas to help maintain a steady flow of electricity as demand rises and falls. One megawatt can power about 200 typical Houston resi-dences during peak demand.

Battery storage is often called the "Holy Grail" for turning power grids green, because it could provide power during stretches when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining.

"Storage is close in five years to being a potential game changer, but nobody (in Texas) was talking about it," said Don Clevenger, Oncor senior vice president for planning. "Storage really does address a lot of problems with one device. There's a real panacea of benefits."









IMAGE 1 OF 12
Duke Energy will upgrade the battery storage system at its West Texas wind farm to the more efficient lithium-ion variety.

Tesla and others are developing the mass production of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for power grids and homes from the same technology already used in electric cars. The batteries would store energy from power lines or wind turbines and release the power when it's needed most.

Texas is seen as an ideal candidate for battery development because of the state's topography and climate. The state leads the nation in wind power and has several solar farm projects in the works.

*"It's totally feasible to be 100 percent renewable with massive grids and storage," said Peter Rive, the co-founder and chief technology officer of SolarCity, a major California solar panel company that's chaired by Tesla founder Elon Musk. "We've done it in some (localized) micro-grids."*

*How much can solar produce at night? As much as you need.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 18, 2017)

Why Is Asia Returning to Coal?

Hmmm......the religion s telling us daily in here that coal is dead!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Texas' grid of tomorrow may include batteries
> 
> Sleek lithium-ion battery systems that resemble mainframe computers are poised to connect with Texas' electric grid for the first time this year as more companies seek to revolutionize the power market.
> 
> ...




That's a statement coming from "Solar City". Of course that's what they are going to say. Solar is providing 1% of our electricity. Its grown about 0.4 % in the past 3-4 years ( according to Obamas EIA ). Laughable.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 9.5 and 6.8 = 16.3 GW
> ...



What link shows Watts Bar producing 1,975 GW hr?  The only thing I get on your links is a Wikipedia article expaining units.  When I look up Watts Bar, it says 2.332 GW.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

The *Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant* is a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear reactor used for electric power generation. It is located on a 1,770-acre (7.2 km²) site in Rhea County, Tennessee, near Spring City, between the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville. Watts Bar supplies enough electricity for about 1,200,000 households in the Tennessee Valley.

The plant, construction of which began in 1973, has two Westinghouse pressurized water reactor units: Unit 1, completed in 1996, and Unit 2, completed in 2015.* Unit 1 has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts. Unit 2 has a capacity of 1,165 megawatts.* Unit 2 is the most recent civilian reactor to come on-line in the United States and the first new reactor to enter service in the United States after a 20 year hiatus.
Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia
**************************************************************************************************************

That makes for a total capacity of 2,332 MW or 2.332 GW.  Your claim of 1,975 GW is off by a factor of almost 850X


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 22, 2017)

Crick said:


> The *Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant* is a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear reactor used for electric power generation. It is located on a 1,770-acre (7.2 km²) site in Rhea County, Tennessee, near Spring City, between the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville. Watts Bar supplies enough electricity for about 1,200,000 households in the Tennessee Valley.
> 
> The plant, construction of which began in 1973, has two Westinghouse pressurized water reactor units: Unit 1, completed in 1996, and Unit 2, completed in 2015.* Unit 1 has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts. Unit 2 has a capacity of 1,165 megawatts.* Unit 2 is the most recent civilian reactor to come on-line in the United States and the first new reactor to enter service in the United States after a 20 year hiatus.
> Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia
> ...




post is irrelevant Like saying, "I jacked the car up leading to a 12 second ET."

God......none of these science guys has the ability to see big picture.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2017)

Tom Sweetnam said:


> $36 trillion would buy a lot of bullets, the best expedient I can imagine to cure the global warming scam.



But that is only because you are so very retarded and so completely brainwashed and ignorant.

One bullet fired upwards through the roof of your mouth is all it would take to cure your insanity. Use it!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 22, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> > $36 trillion would buy a lot of bullets, the best expedient I can imagine to cure the global warming scam.
> ...




lol........evidently, Thunder has been in bed since the election. He's woken up...........and he's PiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSSSSED!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 22, 2017)

*https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jan/31/solar-power-what-is-holding-back-growth-clean-energy*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> The cost per kw of the wind and solar electricity is far lower than that of nuclear. It is far quicker to install, and with grid scale storage, can be 24/7. And that is what matters to the consumer. Cost per kw.


I call BULLSHIT!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The cost per kw of the wind and solar electricity is far lower than that of nuclear. It is far quicker to install, and with grid scale storage, can be 24/7. And that is what matters to the consumer. Cost per kw.
> ...




Its all still theory on costs.

*Growth in renewable energy is likely to slow*
*By Leonid Bershidsky / Bloomberg View
Saturday, June 4th, 2016 at 12:02am
*
For hydrocarbon doomsayers, there’s good news and bad news. In 2015, there were record investments in renewable energy, and record capacity was added, much of it in emerging economies. Yet despite the huge investment, the global share of fossil fuels is not shrinking very fast.

Renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal still account for a tiny share of energy production, and there are factors that may inhibit their growth in the next few years.

Although investment in renewables and in the oil industry are of comparable magnitude – $522 billion was invested in oil last year – sustainable energy is growing from a very low base.

*Wind, solar, biomass and geothermal power used in power generation – the area where most governments have concentrated their sustainable energy efforts – account for just 1.4 percent of global energy consumption.*

Renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal still account for a tiny share of energy production, and there are factors that may inhibit their growth in the next few years.

*https://www.abqjournal.com/785681/growth-in-renewable-energy-is-likely-to-slow.html*



Like Ive said in here a million times........renewable energy is a joke.


The climate crusaders always post up lofty growth numbers.........as if renewables are about to dominate the world. When you take a closer look though ( in other words, not hopelessly duped ) you see renewable energy for what it is: fringe energy for the green profiteers.


Stoopid supporters are just so highly naïve, its frankly shocking.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The cost per kw of the wind and solar electricity is far lower than that of nuclear. It is far quicker to install, and with grid scale storage, can be 24/7. And that is what matters to the consumer. Cost per kw.
> ...



Right....but that is just because you are a ridiculous cretin who knows nothing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You have outed yourself, again!

I say we charge the renewable fools for the energy consumption and running of power plants to back them up. Then we take away their subsidies of 28-39 cents per Kwh.  Then we kill the early failure subsidy to repair windmills and solar panels which fail at 5-8 years needing total replacements... Remove the forced purchase by those who own power grids.

Now lets see what is really cost effective and viable..


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy..............dude..........have you ever had as much fun in here?

Thunder is BACK!! And with every post, puts it on a tee for skeptics!


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Billy..............dude..........have you ever had as much fun in here?



So, your idea of fun is getting your ass kicked again and again, eh, kooksucker? You poor retard!


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2020)

How much does it cost, how much have they spent.

Will any democrat supporters of green energy tell us the cost?

no


----------



## elektra (Oct 5, 2020)

since this original estimate the democrats  have revised and stated green clean renewable energy will cost $100 trillion dollars! Essentially, never ending spending.


----------

