# Renewable Energy: Still Breaking Wind



## longknife

by Steven Hayward at Powerline blog






Not working






Read more @ Renewable Energy: Still Breaking Wind | Power Line


----------



## Old Rocks

Bring back the buggy whip. Damned horseless carriages ain't never going to amount to nothin'.


----------



## waltky

Google pledges 100% renewable energy use by 2017...




*Google Says Will Use 100 Percent Renewable Energy by 2017*
_December 06, 2016 - Search giant Google says it will use 100 percent renewable energy by 2017, according to a post on the company’s blog._


> Google Senior Vice President of Technical Infrastructure Urs Hölzle said renewable energy will power Google’s data centers and offices around the world.  According to the post, Google uses incredible amounts of energy to process trillions of searches per year. On Google’s YouTube video platform, people upload 400 hours of video every minute, the company said.  “Our engineers have spent years perfecting Google's data centers, making them 50 percent more energy efficient than the industry average,” Hölzle wrote. “But we still need a lot of energy to power the products and services that our users depend on.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cattle graze in a pasture against a backdrop of wind turbines near Vesper, Kansas​
> He added that the company has been buying renewable energy since 2010 when it bought “all the electricity” produced by a 114-megawatt wind farm in Iowa.  “Today, we are the world’s largest corporate buyer of renewable power, with commitments reaching 2.6 gigawatts (2,600 megawatts) of wind and solar energy,” Hölzle wrote.
> 
> Google says the price of renewable energy is falling, citing that wind and solar have become 60 and 80 percent cheaper respectively.  Google said the company is involved in 20 renewable energy projects worldwide.
> 
> Google Says Will Use 100 Percent Renewable Energy by 2017


----------



## Old Rocks

longknife said:


> by Steven Hayward at Powerline blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not working
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more @ Renewable Energy: Still Breaking Wind | Power Line


LOL  A very funny read four years later. What a dumbass that wrote that. 

Wind Energy Investment Increases Worldwide






Global Status Report - REN21

2015 was an extraordinary year for renewable energy. Renewables are now cost competitive with fossil fuels in many markets and are established around the world as mainstream sources of energy. Cities, communities and companies are leading the rapidly expanding “100% renewable” movement. Distributed renewable energy is advancing rapidly to close the energy access gap. Read the report and check out REN21’s Renewables Interactive Map for country specific data.

Read more at: Global Status Report - REN21

Global Status Report - REN21


----------



## waltky

Renewable energy in Africa...




*Homegrown Solar Farm, Wind Turbines Keep Kenyan Community Buzzing*
_January 26, 2017  — When the first few residents of this village in the Ngong hills installed solar panels nearly a decade ago, the only aim was to power their own homes. Their town had no connection to the national power grid._


> But today the community, south of Nairobi in the Rift Valley, is buzzing with solar and wind energy, which powers everything from the dispensary and church to shops, homes and even a rescue center for girls fleeing child marriage and the threat of female genital mutilation.  Residents say they banded together to buy the shared energy system themselves, recognizing that the substantial upfront cost would create benefits for years to come. Those now include everything from vaccines that can now be kept cold at the dispensary to solar-powered pumping of water.  "Before we started this solar farm, people from this village used to travel to Ngong town, which is 17 kilometers away, to get basic services and goods such as a photocopy or a haircut. This used to inconvenience us greatly, since you had to part with a tidy sum," said Simon Parkesian, the manager of the community's solar farm.
> 
> Residents chipped in
> 
> In 2009, some residents of Olosho-Oibor, impressed with the first couple of private solar panels installed in the community, decided they wanted panels of their own, but many people could not afford them.  So a group of community members began contributing $10 a month each until they had enough to buy a set of larger solar panels that could serve many nearby homes.  They then approached the U.N. Industrial Development Organization for technical help in installing their system.  Today, the 125-member energy cooperative has raised $4,900 for panels installed on poles around the community and on rooftops and has installed two small wind turbines as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then-President Barack Obama looks at a solar power exhibit during a tour of the Power Africa Innovation Fair, July 25, 2015, in Nairobi, Kenya. With technical help from the U.N. Industrial Development Organization, a cooperative in Olosho-Oibor installed solar panels on poles around the community and on rooftops. It has installed two small wind turbines as well.​
> The community also has a 10-kilowatt diesel generator as a backup in periods when sunshine and wind fall short, Parkesian said.  Lydia Mboyo, one of those receiving power from the community energy farm, said having lights in the evening has helped her children study and has allowed her to run her small retail shop at night. She now is planning to expand her shop and buy a refrigerator to store perishable food and drinks.  "I am also a member of a women's group that makes and sells beaded ornaments abroad, and with lighting we have been able to store our business records in computers. We also listen to the radio for entertainment while beading," Mboyo said.
> 
> Technology center
> 
> Parkesian said access to power also has spurred creation of a community information and communications technology center that has trained more than 40 people in basic computer skills, and that now offers photocopying and printing services.  The center also allows people to charge their mobile phones, which once had to be switched off to save power when not being used to make calls.
> 
> As well, the renewable energy network is powering a center for vulnerable girls fleeing early marriage and female genital mutilation, "both problems common in the area," Parkesian said.  "The power grid has initiated many projects in the community, but the most important project is the girls' rescue center that houses close to 80 vulnerable girls," he said. The center, opened in 2012, uses renewable energy to light its dormitories and classrooms.
> 
> Jackline Mwendo, a nurse at Olosho-Olbor dispensary, said her facility has been able to offer vaccine services since it got power to provide refrigeration.  The dispensary's water supply has also improved as a result of using solar-powered pumps, she said, though she is still hoping for additional power to light maternal delivery rooms at night.  Parkesian said the cost of maintaining the renewable mini-grid has been significant, and community members have needed to contribute $5 a month for continuing access to power to help pay those costs.
> 
> *Technical knowledge needed*



See also:

*Nigeria seizes $1.2 billion oil bloc in Shell, Eni scandal*
_January 27, 2017 — Nigeria is seizing back one of Africa's richest oil blocs and will prosecute petroleum giants Shell and Eni in a $1.2 billion corruption scandal that has drawn investigators from the United States, Italy, France, Switzerland and Holland, according to a Nigerian Federal High Court document._


> The court on Thursday ceded control of Oil Prospecting License 245 to the government while the West African country's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigates and prosecutes suspects in the "Malabu Oil scam," according to a statement from the commission.  The commission's petition to the court says Dutch-British corporation Shell and Italian Agip — now Eni — bought the bloc in 2011 knowing the transaction was "fraught with fraud" and that the $1.2 billion payment to former petroleum minister Dan Etete and his allies was a bribe. The state oil company got only $210 million from the deal.  The government is preparing further charges of "conspiracy, bribery, official corruption and money-laundering" against Shell and Eni, the petition says.
> 
> Criminal charges already have been filed against both companies and several executives in an Italian court in Milan.  "This is historic. Generations of Nigerians have been robbed of life-saving services while oil men have grown rich at their expense," said Simon Taylor of the anti-corruption body Global Witness. "Companies and their investors must understand they can no longer do backdoor deals with corrupt officials without paying a hefty price."
> 
> Eni has not received notification of the court order, spokesman Roberto Carlo Albini told The Associated Press. "Eni denies any wrongdoing," he said. Shell Nigeria spokesman Bamidele Olugbenga Odugbesan said he had no comment.  The oil companies paid the $1.2 billion into a Nigerian government escrow account at the London branch of JPMorgan Chase, and former justice minister Mohammed Bello Adoke authorized its distribution.
> 
> The commission last month filed charges of fraud and money laundering against Etete, Adoke and businessman Aliyu Abubakar.  The petition says Nigeria's former military dictator Gen. Sani Abacha and Etete used front men to form Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd. and illegally awarded themselves OPL 245. After Abacha's mysterious death in 1998, the company directors and shareholding was fraudulently altered to divest Abacha's son, Mohammed, it says.  The Malabu bloc was seized by the government once before, by the civilian government of Olusegun Obasanjo in 2001. Malabu Oil sued and an out of court agreement returned the bloc to the company.
> 
> Nigeria seizes $1.2 billion oil bloc in Shell, Eni scandal


----------



## skookerasbil

Renewable energy is a joke. Will be in 2050 too. Plenty on this in the ENVIRONMENT forum. Some point to these ridiculous growth #'s but they are compared only to themselves and not compared against fossil fuels. When they are, its laughable. Solar still providing only slightly more than 1% of our electricity.......wind about 4%. Will only double by 2050........not my projections but the projections in 2016 from the Obama administration.

Meanwhile......coal production in China will *DOUBLE* by 2050!!

Check this thread ( link below ) and find out all you need to know about the realities of renewable energy.......its a global warming alarmists worst nightmare!! These people never, ever post up any graph showing board members how renewables compare to fossil fuels.......all graphs compare growth rates for the specific renewable only. Progressives do this shit all the time. All fuckery all the time.

One of the most epic threads on the USMB btw >> 

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.313851/*


..........5,200+ posts and 200,000 views!! Obliterates ALL of the arguments of the warmist k00ks.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Bring back the buggy whip. Damned horseless carriages ain't never going to amount to nothin'.


yep, wind mills proceeded horse drawn buggies, nice way to take a modern society back to just after the stone age, wind mills!


----------



## elektra

Wow, tens of thousands of failed wind turbines in the USA alone! If I can quote the OP's link:



> Translation: wind mills wear out faster than you think.  Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, commented: “This study confirms suspicions that decades of generous subsidies to the wind industry have failed to encourage the innovation needed to make the sector competitive. Bluntly, wind turbines onshore and offshore still cost too much and wear out far too quickly to offer the developing world a realistic alternative to coal.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abandoned Wind Farm in Hawaii
> 
> Is this true for wind installations in the US?  No idea, but I have noticed for long time now that when I drive through California’s Tehachapi Pass on Hwy 58 (as I did again just the other day), you can see a lot of old, 1970s-era windmills still sitting at top ridges, but not operating any more.  Apparently a lot of them were put up by wind power ventures, enticed by federal tax credits and subsidies that started back under Jimmy Carter, and California tax credits and subsidies started under Governor-for-Life Jerry Brown, and now there’s no one to take responsibility for taking them down.  According to one estimate, there are 14,000 abandoned windmills in the U.S., though this number is disputed, though even wind defenders acknowledge there are “derelict” wind mills in California.


----------



## Old Rocks

By 2017, solar power capacity in the U.S. will have nearly tripled in less than three years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Combined wind, utility-scale and distributed solar power accounted for more than 66% of all new capacity installed in the U.S. last year. *Already, more than twice the number of Americans -- about 209,000 -- work in the solar industry compared with coal and by 2020, that number will double to more than 420,000, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association.*

The U.S. residential solar market has grown in 15 of the last 16 quarters. That's largely due to government incentives, such as the recently renewed solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and creative financing programs like leases and power purchase agreements (PPAs) that allow homeowners and businesses to install solar panels with no money down. (But they do require owners to lock into 20-year contracts.)






Sierra Club
San Francisco is one of 20 major U.S. cities that have committed to using 100% renewable energy within the next 15 to 20 years.

The state of solar power looks bright in 2017 (+video)

*How many new coal fired plants planned in 2017? How many new coal mines being opened? LOL*


----------



## Old Rocks

*US wind power jobs hit record, up 20 percent in 2016*
*‘Wind rush’ fuels hiring boom, delivers more consumer savings*
April 12, 2016

DENVER, April 12, 2016 — American wind power supported a record 88,000 jobs at the start of 2016—an increase of 20 percent in a year—according to the *U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report**, Year Ending 2015,* released today by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). Strong job growth coincided with wind ranking number one as America’s leading source of new generating capacity last year, outpacing solar and natural gas.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper joined in the release at a Vestas wind turbine component factory near Denver, saying "In 2015, Colorado ranked fifth in the nation for wind power capacity additions. An investment in the wind power industry and in wind projects generates new jobs, economic development in rural counties and clean air benefits to all Coloradans."

“Wind power benefits more American families than ever before,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of AWEA. “We’re helping young people in rural America find a job close to home. Others are getting a fresh chance to rebuild their careers by landing a job in the booming clean energy sector. With long-term, stable policy in place, and a broader range of customers now buying low-cost wind-generated electricity, our workforce can grow to 380,000 well-paying jobs by 2030.”

Congress passed a long-term extension of the wind energy Production Tax Credit and alternative Investment Tax Credit with bipartisan support late last year. With the extension in place and the recent industry growth, wind energy is on track to meet the Department of Energy’s _Wind Vision _scenario of supplying 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030.

“Made-in-the-USA wind power will help keep our economy competitive and our air clean for generations,” Kiernan said. “Our wind energy will never run out.”

US wind power jobs hit record, up 20 percent in 2016

*Renewables supporting a great many more jobs than the coal industry

Annual Coal Report - Energy Information Administration

The Annual Coal Report (ACR) provides annual data on U.S. coal production, number of mines, productive capacity, recoverable reserves, employment, productivity, consumption, stocks, and prices. All data for 2015 and prior years are final.

Highlights for 2015:


In 2015, U.S. coal production dropped 10.3% year-over-year to below 900 million short tons, the lowest annual production level since 1986.
Production in the Western Region, representing 56.6% of total U.S. coal production in 2015, totaled 507.4 million short tons (MMst), 6.5% lower than 2014.
In 2015, the productivity capacity of U.S. coal mines decreased for the fourth year in a row to 1,165 MMst, a decline of 6.3% from the 2014 levels.
The average number of employees at U.S. coal mines decreased 12.0% to 65,971 employees, the lowest on record since EIA began collecting data in 1978.
U.S. coal consumption of 798 MMst in 2015 was 13.1% lower from the 2014 levels. The electric power sector consumed about 92.5% of the total U.S. coal consumption in 2014.
Average sales price of coal from U.S. mines was $31.83 per short ton in 2015, 8.6% lower than the prior year.
Total U.S. coal stocks ended at 238.8 MMst, 20.6% higher than at the same time in 2014. Electric power coal stocks increased from 151.8 MMst at the end of 2014 to 195.9 MMst at the end of 2015, the highest year-ending stocks on record.
*


----------



## Old Rocks

If the orange clown wishes to increase employment in the US, he will shut down the remaining coal mines, and start building solar and wind.


----------



## hadit

The smart nation will commit to using all available forms of energy, not restrict themselves to just a handful for political reasons.

There are two extreme viewpoints on this argument.  One holds that fossil fuels are and will forever be the only smart energy source it makes sense to use and all efforts to develop any others are useless.  The other holds that the use of fossil fuels must cease immediately, and gun point if necessary, and immature renewable technology must be forced into its place.  Neither extreme is wise.

The fact is, fossil fuels ARE the cheapest, most readily available source of energy for most of the world, and we have the infrastructure in place to use it.  Another facet of that reality, however, is that renewable energy sources are being researched and developed, and ARE becoming more cost competitive.

There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.


----------



## elektra

hadit said:


> There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.


Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels. 

If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose. 

Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.


----------



## Old Rocks

In 2016, solar-panel energy finally became cheaper than fossil fuels. Just wait for 2017.

The renewable energy future will arrive when installing new solar panels is cheaper than a comparable investment in coal, natural gas or other options. If you ask the World Economic Forum (WEF), the day has arrived.

Solar and wind is now the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, the WEF reported in December (pdf). As prices for solar and wind power continue their precipitous fall, two-thirds of all nations will reach the point known as “grid parity” within a few years, even without subsidies. “Renewable energy has reached a tipping point,” Michael Drexler, who leads infrastructure and development investing at the WEF, said in a statement. “It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Those numbers are already translating into vast new acres of silicon and glass. In 2016, utilities added 9.5 gigawatts (GW) of photovoltaic capacity to the US grid, making solar the top fuel source for the first time in a calendar year, according to the US Energy Information Administration’s estimates. The US added about 125 solar panels every minute in 2016, about double the pace last year, reports the Solar Energy Industry Association.

*Solar and wind are now cheaper than dirty coal. And the new grid scale batteries will make both 24/7.*


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.
> 
> 
> 
> Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.
> 
> If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.
> 
> Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.
Click to expand...

Silly ass, the B-17's built in the Boeing plant in Seattle were built with renewable energy. And electricity is electricity, it does not care how it is generated. So, electricity from wind can be used to build solar panels and wind mill parts just as easily as electricity from coal and gas plants.


----------



## Old Rocks

This Could Become the Cheapest Power on Earth

Solar power is now cheaper than coal in some parts of the world. In less than a decade, it’s likely to be the lowest-cost option almost everywhere.

In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power. Now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Mexico are planning auctions and tenders for this year, aiming to drop prices even further. Taking advantage: Companies such as Italy’s Enel SpA and Dublin’s Mainstream Renewable Power, who gained experienced in Europe and now seek new markets abroad as subsidies dry up at home.

Since 2009, solar prices are down 62 percent, with every part of the supply chain trimming costs. That’s help cut risk premiums on bank loans, and pushed manufacturing capacity to record levels. By 2025, solar may be cheaper than using coal on average globally, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

“These are game-changing numbers, and it’s becoming normal in more and more markets," said Adnan Amin, International Renewable Energy Agency ’s director general, an Abu Dhabi-based intergovernmental group. "Every time you double capacity, you reduce the price by 20 percent.”

*I think this will happen by 2025. At present no one is building coal fired plants anywhere in the lower 48. *


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Silly ass, the B-17's built in the Boeing plant in Seattle were built with renewable energy. And electricity is electricity, it does not care how it is generated. So, electricity from wind can be used to build solar panels and wind mill parts just as easily as electricity from coal and gas plants.


No dumb ass, they were built with Hydro-Electric, you know big dams. Dams, that have caused the failure of Venezuela's economy and cause all the blackouts across Brazil. 

And, no, you can not build Solar Panels with Solar Power, it is not strong enough, not now, not never. If it was they would already be doing it. 

Oh, and very sneaky, right, to state "Wind Mill Parts", because everyone knows you need Coal to build a Wind Turbine! Yea, maybe you could build, well, never mind, you can not build anything on Wind Mill with the electricity it generates. That is why they only advertise a Wind Turbine as providing the Electricity for 10 or 20 houses, NOT INDUSTRY!


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Silly ass, the B-17's built in the Boeing plant in Seattle were built with renewable energy. And electricity is electricity, it does not care how it is generated. So, electricity from wind can be used to build solar panels and wind mill parts just as easily as electricity from coal and gas plants.


Last I checked, all metal and aluminum is made with Coal, old crock, your are about as stupid as they get.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly ass, the B-17's built in the Boeing plant in Seattle were built with renewable energy. And electricity is electricity, it does not care how it is generated. So, electricity from wind can be used to build solar panels and wind mill parts just as easily as electricity from coal and gas plants.
> 
> 
> 
> No dumb ass, they were built with Hydro-Electric, you know big dams. Dams, that have caused the failure of Venezuela's economy and cause all the blackouts across Brazil.
> 
> And, no, you can not build Solar Panels with Solar Power, it is not strong enough, not now, not never. If it was they would already be doing it.
> 
> Oh, and very sneaky, right, to state "Wind Mill Parts", because everyone knows you need Coal to build a Wind Turbine! Yea, maybe you could build, well, never mind, you can not build anything on Wind Mill with the electricity it generates. That is why they only advertise a Wind Turbine as providing the Electricity for 10 or 20 houses, NOT INDUSTRY!
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you trying to say? 

Hydro is a renewable. And both solar and wind produce electricity in this nation by the by the giga-watt. And you are trying to tell us that you cannot use giga-watts of to produce the parts for a wind mill, or a solar panel. The electricity produced by solar and wind go on the grid, same as electricity from any other source. Now how can you tell me that electricity is not used in manufacturing. Do you think they label the electrons wind, solar, coal produced, ect. 

You just get increasingly stupid as time goes on.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Process[edit]*



The *Bayer process*

In the Bayer process, bauxite ore is heated in a pressure vessel along with a sodium hydroxide solution at a temperature of 150 to 200 °C. At these temperatures, the aluminium is dissolved as sodium aluminate in an extraction process. The aluminium compounds in the bauxite may be present as gibbsite(Al(OH)3), boehmite(AlOOH) or diaspore(AlOOH); the different forms of the aluminium component will dictate the extraction conditions. After separation of the residue by filtering, gibbsite (aluminium hydroxide) is precipitated when the liquid is cooled and then seeded with fine-grained aluminium hydroxide.

The extraction process converts the aluminium oxide in the ore to soluble sodium aluminate, 2NaAlO2, according to the chemical equation:

Al2O3 + 2 NaOH → 2 NaAlO2 + H2O
This treatment also dissolves silica, but the other components of bauxite do not dissolve. Sometimes lime is added at this stage to precipitate the silica as calcium silicate. The solution is clarified by filtering off the solid impurities, commonly with a rotary sand trap and with the aid of a flocculant such as starch, to remove the fine particles. The undissolved waste after the aluminium compounds are extracted, bauxite tailings, contains iron oxides, silica, calcia, titania and some unreacted alumina. The original process was that the alkaline solution was cooled and treated by bubbling carbon dioxide through it, a method by which aluminium hydroxide precipitates:

2 NaAlO2 + CO2 → 2 Al(OH)3 + Na2CO3 + H2O
But later, this gave way to seeding the supersaturated solution with high-purity aluminium hydroxide (Al(OH)3) crystal, which eliminated the need for cooling the liquid and was more economically feasible:

2 H2O + NaAlO2 → Al(OH)3 + NaOH
Some of the aluminium hydroxide produced is used in the manufacture of water treatment chemicals such as aluminium sulfate, PAC (Poly aluminium chloride) or sodium aluminate; a significant amount is also used as a filler in rubber and plastics as a fire retardant. Some 90% of the gibbsite produced is converted into aluminium oxide, Al2O3, by heating in rotary kilns or fluid flash calciners to a temperature in excess of 1000 °C.

2 Al(OH)3 → Al2O3 + 3 H2O
The left-over or 'spent' sodium aluminate solution is then recycled. This, however, allows gallium and vanadium impurities to build up in the liquors, so these can be extracted.

For bauxites having more than 10% silica, the Bayer process becomes uneconomic due to insoluble sodium aluminium silicate being formed, which reduces yield, and another process must be chosen.

Over 90% of the aluminium oxide so produced is used in the Hall–Héroult process to produce aluminium.

Bayer process - Wikipedia

*For heat in this process, one could use coal or natural gas. I would guess at present natural gas is the choice.

Aluminum Smelting and Refining

Primary Aluminum Refining
Aluminum production from bauxite ore is a three step process. First the alumina is extracted from bauxite ore usually using the Bayer Process. In the Bayer Process, finely crushed bauxite is mixed with sodium hydroxide and placed in a `digester.' High temperatures and pressures in the digester cause reactions in the ore / sodium hydroxide mixture. The result is dissolved aluminum oxide and ore residue. The residues, which include silicon, lead, titanium, and calcium oxides, form a sludge in the bottom of the digester. The aluminum oxide is evaporated off and condensed. Starches and other ingredients are added to remove any remaining impurities from the oxide.

The solution is then moved to a precipitation tank where the aluminum oxide is crystallized. Aluminum hydroxide and sodium hydrizide are the products of the crystallization. The crystals are washed, vacuum dewatered and sent to a calcinator for further dewatering.

Aluminum oxide from the Bayer Process is then reduced to aluminum metal usually using the Hall-Heroult process. In this process the aluminum oxide is placed in a electrolytic cell with molten cryolite. A carbon rod in the cell is charged and the reaction results in carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and aluminum. The aluminum sinks to the bottom where it is removed from the tank and sent to a melting or holding furnace.

The molten aluminum is then mixed with desired alloys to obtain specific characteristics and cast into ingots for transport to fabricating shops. In the fabrication shops, the molten aluminum or aluminum alloys are remelted and poured into casts and cooled. Molten aluminum may be further heated to remove oxides, impurities and other active metals such as sodium and magnesium, before casting. Chlorine may also be bubbled through the molten aluminum to further remove impurities.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................

The Hall process uses electricity, the Bayer process can use a fossil fuel, coal or natural gas. However, you cannot get aluminum without electricity. 

*


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> What the fuck are you trying to say?
> 
> Hydro is a renewable. And both solar and wind produce electricity in this nation by the by the giga-watt. And you are trying to tell us that you cannot use giga-watts of to produce the parts for a wind mill, or a solar panel. The electricity produced by solar and wind go on the grid, same as electricity from any other source. Now how can you tell me that electricity is not used in manufacturing. Do you think they label the electrons wind, solar, coal produced, ect.
> 
> You just get increasingly stupid as time goes on.



You can't make steel with just "electrons", Old Crock, you have made the claim that you worked in the steel industry, so you must know the truth. You need Coal to make steel or aluminum, period. You can not make steel or aluminum without Coal. I guess you might be able to make the argument you could get the carbon required from Natural Gas? Yes? But my post stands as based in Science whereas your post is a crock. 

How come Venezuela does not have the electricity to run its economy if Hydro is Renewable? Venezuela is electricity is produced by Hydro, 71%! 

If Hydroelectric Power is Renewable, how come Venezuela does not simply renew, the hydro? Instead of suffering the collapse of its economy?


----------



## Old Rocks

*Ms. Elektra, you are hopelessly stupid. Every hear of electric furnaces?*



A schematic cross-section through an EAF. Three electrodes (yellow), molten bath (gold), tapping spout at left, refractory brick movable roof, brick shell, and a refractory-lined bowl-shaped hearth.

Electric arc furnace - Wikipedia


----------



## hadit

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.
> 
> 
> 
> Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.
> 
> If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.
> 
> Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.
Click to expand...

You fail to consider the long view.  Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible.  Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.

The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.


----------



## elektra

hadit said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.
> 
> 
> 
> Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.
> 
> If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.
> 
> Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fail to consider the long view.  Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible.  Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.
> 
> The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.
Click to expand...

No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.


----------



## hadit

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.
> 
> 
> 
> Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.
> 
> If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.
> 
> Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fail to consider the long view.  Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible.  Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.
> 
> The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding.  There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't.  The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year.  Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time.  The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them. 

We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it.  You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.


----------



## elektra

hadit said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.
> 
> 
> 
> Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.
> 
> If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.
> 
> Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fail to consider the long view.  Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible.  Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.
> 
> The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not understanding.  There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't.  The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year.  Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time.  The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them.
> 
> We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it.  You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.
Click to expand...

Short sighted, would be your response. You are responding out of feelings, a belief. What do you actually know about wind and solar.

Solar in the desert? Far from where it is used? 50% loss of electricity for every 50 miles of power line.

Solar in the desert, how many millions of gallons of water to clean the solar panels of desert dust?

And then, how many 100's of square miles of wildlife habitat do you want destroyrd.

Wind Power? I have seen 3-4 companies by the same wind farms and go bankrupt. I have seen 3 generations of wind turbines in 25 years. They do not last long at all. They use 300 gallons of oil a year, millions of gallons of oil. They are garbage. What do you know about any of this? Nothing.

$44 trillion dollars is your price tag to give us 5% of our energy. After it is all built it will be trillions more, right away to replace the thousands that fail. After 10 yesrs of operation it is all garbage thst gets replaced

$44 trillion dollars spent on nuclear power would give us 200% of the power we need, for the next 75 years.

Yea, lets actually discuss the facts, like how much coal and oil is needed by the renewable energy industry.

I have had the same debate on this message board so it will be easy.

I can dig up an old thread withh all the links and information.

From coke/coal to smelt the steel. To propene that comes from oil to make fiberglass.

Or, carbon supplied from natural gas to make carbon fiber blades for wind turbines.

None of this have you researched nor any on your side of the debate.

Yes, to use your words, dont be a short sighted idiot when you advocate for something you know nothing of.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> by Steven Hayward at Powerline blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not working
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more @ Renewable Energy: Still Breaking Wind | Power Line
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  A very funny read four years later. What a dumbass that wrote that.
> 
> Wind Energy Investment Increases Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Global Status Report - REN21
> 
> 2015 was an extraordinary year for renewable energy. Renewables are now cost competitive with fossil fuels in many markets and are established around the world as mainstream sources of energy. Cities, communities and companies are leading the rapidly expanding “100% renewable” movement. Distributed renewable energy is advancing rapidly to close the energy access gap. Read the report and check out REN21’s Renewables Interactive Map for country specific data.
> 
> Read more at: Global Status Report - REN21
> 
> Global Status Report - REN21
Click to expand...


Just because people spend money and governemnt subsidies on wind doesn't mean it's a good alternative.

Wind has failed in the UK and Germany and it will fail here as well


----------



## Skull Pilot

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.
> 
> 
> 
> Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.
> 
> If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.
> 
> Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fail to consider the long view.  Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible.  Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.
> 
> The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not understanding.  There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't.  The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year.  Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time.  The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them.
> 
> We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it.  You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Short sighted, would be your response. You are responding out of feelings, a belief. What do you actually know about wind and solar.
> 
> Solar in the desert? Far from where it is used? 50% loss of electricity for every 50 miles of power line.
> 
> Solar in the desert, how many millions of gallons of water to clean the solar panels of desert dust?
> 
> And then, how many 100's of square miles of wildlife habitat do you want destroyrd.
> 
> Wind Power? I have seen 3-4 companies by the same wind farms and go bankrupt. I have seen 3 generations of wind turbines in 25 years. They do not last long at all. They use 300 gallons of oil a year, millions of gallons of oil. They are garbage. What do you know about any of this? Nothing.
> 
> $44 trillion dollars is your price tag to give us 5% of our energy. After it is all built it will be trillions more, right away to replace the thousands that fail. After 10 yesrs of operation it is all garbage thst gets replaced
> 
> $44 trillion dollars spent on nuclear power would give us 200% of the power we need, for the next 75 years.
> 
> Yea, lets actually discuss the facts, like how much coal and oil is needed by the renewable energy industry.
> 
> I have had the same debate on this message board so it will be easy.
> 
> I can dig up an old thread withh all the links and information.
> 
> From coke/coal to smelt the steel. To propene that comes from oil to make fiberglass.
> 
> Or, carbon supplied from natural gas to make carbon fiber blades for wind turbines.
> 
> None of this have you researched nor any on your side of the debate.
> 
> Yes, to use your words, dont be a short sighted idiot when you advocate for something you know nothing of.
Click to expand...

not to mention that wind turbines only produce on average less than 25% of their rated capacity and that can dip to as low as 15%


----------



## Skull Pilot

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers

Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?

shall I go on or will you wind lovers finally admit that the best option for emission free abundant and reliable power 24/7/365 is nuclear?

Nuclear Electricity's Bright Future


----------



## hadit

Skull Pilot said:


> What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
> Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
> 
> Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?
> 
> shall I go on or will you wind lovers finally admit that the best option for emission free abundant and reliable power 24/7/365 is nuclear?
> 
> Nuclear Electricity's Bright Future


Nuclear is certainly one of the best long-term alternatives, especially with modern safety technology.


----------



## hadit

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason we can't have both.  Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources.  Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.
> 
> 
> 
> Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.
> 
> If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.
> 
> Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fail to consider the long view.  Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible.  Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.
> 
> The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not understanding.  There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't.  The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year.  Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time.  The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them.
> 
> We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it.  You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Short sighted, would be your response. You are responding out of feelings, a belief. What do you actually know about wind and solar.
> 
> Solar in the desert? Far from where it is used? 50% loss of electricity for every 50 miles of power line.
> 
> Solar in the desert, how many millions of gallons of water to clean the solar panels of desert dust?
> 
> And then, how many 100's of square miles of wildlife habitat do you want destroyrd.
> 
> Wind Power? I have seen 3-4 companies by the same wind farms and go bankrupt. I have seen 3 generations of wind turbines in 25 years. They do not last long at all. They use 300 gallons of oil a year, millions of gallons of oil. They are garbage. What do you know about any of this? Nothing.
> 
> $44 trillion dollars is your price tag to give us 5% of our energy. After it is all built it will be trillions more, right away to replace the thousands that fail. After 10 yesrs of operation it is all garbage thst gets replaced
> 
> $44 trillion dollars spent on nuclear power would give us 200% of the power we need, for the next 75 years.
> 
> Yea, lets actually discuss the facts, like how much coal and oil is needed by the renewable energy industry.
> 
> I have had the same debate on this message board so it will be easy.
> 
> I can dig up an old thread withh all the links and information.
> 
> From coke/coal to smelt the steel. To propene that comes from oil to make fiberglass.
> 
> Or, carbon supplied from natural gas to make carbon fiber blades for wind turbines.
> 
> None of this have you researched nor any on your side of the debate.
> 
> Yes, to use your words, dont be a short sighted idiot when you advocate for something you know nothing of.
Click to expand...

Oh, please do dig through history to amuse yourself, and while you're at it, realize that most of the objections to any alternative energy source lie in the assumption that it alone must provide all of the energy we need.  There is, however, no imperative to power the nation solely through, in this case, wind power.  

That is the mistake extremists continually make, assuming that energy production is an all or nothing game while it simply is not.  Trying to shoehorn a solution into a place where it doesn't work is as foolish as refusing to use it where it does.


----------



## Skull Pilot

hadit said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
> Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
> 
> Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?
> 
> shall I go on or will you wind lovers finally admit that the best option for emission free abundant and reliable power 24/7/365 is nuclear?
> 
> Nuclear Electricity's Bright Future
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear is certainly one of the best long-term alternatives, especially with modern safety technology.
Click to expand...

and there are newer designs that can replace the current and quite frankly obsolete reactors we use today


----------



## elektra

hadit said:


> Oh, please do dig through history to amuse yourself, and while you're at it, realize that most of the objections to any alternative energy source lie in the assumption that it alone must provide all of the energy we need.  There is, however, no imperative to power the nation solely through, in this case, wind power.
> 
> That is the mistake extremists continually make, assuming that energy production is an all or nothing game while it simply is not.  Trying to shoehorn a solution into a place where it doesn't work is as foolish as refusing to use it where it does.


Ha,ha,ha, you can't argue the technical aspects of solar and wind. You cant address the pollution or the land they destroy. You cant address the raw materials they consume. Instead you construct a strawman arguement that it is opposed because renewables cant provide a 100% of our power?

Right, pure strawman, I have never heard one conservative or republican oppose renewables because they can not provide a 100% of our power.

Wind and Solar have failed, the solution to fux Solar and Wind, the scientific techological engineering idea to fix solar and wind, that would be, MAKE THEM BIGGER!

YOU COULD NEVER POWER THE NATION SOLELY ON WIND POWER, you would run out of money, long before you reach that goal.

Nope, we oppose the $44 trillion dollar price tag, and considering governtment spending, the bill will be more like a $100 trillion.

Your idea has failed, in california, in spain, in greece, everywhere it is trued, it has failed.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Electric arc furnace - Wikipedia





Old Rocks said:


> *Ms. Elektra, you are hopelessly stupid. Every hear of electric furnaces?*





> Electra: "You need Coal to make steel or aluminum, period. You can not make steel or aluminum without Coal"



Sure Old Crock, I have heard of Electric Arc Furnaces, if you had half a brain you would realize we had this discussion in the past.

Just when I think someone is a bigger moron than Old Crock, Old Crock makes a stupid post proving nobody has less brains than Old Crock.

I stated you can not make steel or Aluminum with just electricity, you need Coke. Old Crock has provided a link that Old Crock thinks proves me wrong. Now would it not be hilarious if Old Crock's link proves Old Crock is more stupid than a rock! That would be funny, well, I am going to use Old Crock's link!

Electric arc furnace - Wikipedia


> Later in the heat,* carbon (in the form of coke or coal) is injected* into this slag layer, reacting with the iron oxide to form metallic iron and carbon monoxide gas, which then causes the slag to foam, allowing greater thermal efficiency, and better arc stability and electrical efficiency


----------



## hadit

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please do dig through history to amuse yourself, and while you're at it, realize that most of the objections to any alternative energy source lie in the assumption that it alone must provide all of the energy we need.  There is, however, no imperative to power the nation solely through, in this case, wind power.
> 
> That is the mistake extremists continually make, assuming that energy production is an all or nothing game while it simply is not.  Trying to shoehorn a solution into a place where it doesn't work is as foolish as refusing to use it where it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha,ha,ha, you can't argue the technical aspects of solar and wind. You cant address the pollution or the land they destroy. You cant address the raw materials they consume. Instead you construct a strawman arguement that it is opposed because renewables cant provide a 100% of our power?
> 
> Right, pure strawman, I have never heard one conservative or republican oppose renewables because they can not provide a 100% of our power.
> 
> Wind and Solar have failed, the solution to fux Solar and Wind, the scientific techological engineering idea to fix solar and wind, that would be, MAKE THEM BIGGER!
> 
> YOU COULD NEVER POWER THE NATION SOLELY ON WIND POWER, you would run out of money, long before you reach that goal.
> 
> Nope, we oppose the $44 trillion dollar price tag, and considering governtment spending, the bill will be more like a $100 trillion.
> 
> Your idea has failed, in california, in spain, in greece, everywhere it is trued, it has failed.
Click to expand...

You're making my point for me.  I wonder if you'll ever realize that.


----------



## elektra

hadit said:


> You're making my point for me.  I wonder if you'll ever realize that.


You can not make your point, let alone me. I get it, you have no argument other than a Utopian fantasy.


----------



## Old Rocks

*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.






*LOL*


----------



## elektra

Or is it $44 trillion dollars, that they propose to spend on renewables?

$71 Trillion Bonus for Us If We Switch to Clean Energy

The report also puts a number on these things. It projects that we will need to invest $44 trillion globally by 2050 in order to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius.


----------



## hadit

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making my point for me.  I wonder if you'll ever realize that.
> 
> 
> 
> You can not make your point, let alone me. I get it, you have no argument other than a Utopian fantasy.
Click to expand...

Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.


----------



## elektra

hadit said:


> You're making my point for me.  I wonder if
> Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.


That figure comes from the Renewable energy folks, matthew's link.

Clean Energy: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity — Ceres

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to invest $44 trillion in clean energy by 2050 – an average of $1.2 trillion per year for the next 36 years.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well now, since it will be for profit corporations doing the investing, that is a good idea. A win-win for all. They get profits, we get less costly energy, and the environment is less polluted.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, since it will be for profit corporations doing the investing, that is a good idea. A win-win for all. They get profits, we get less costly energy, and the environment is less polluted.


you mean they get a shit load of taxpayer dollars since a utility grade windmill costs 2.2 million per MW so your average 2MW turbine costs over 4 million

but we need to install 4 2MW turbines to equal the rated output of one 2 MW turbine so in reality we are paying over 8 million per MW


----------



## Old Rocks

*Wind Overtakes Coal Power in Europe as Turbines Head Offshore*

*Wind Overtakes Coal Power in Europe as Turbines Head Offshore*
by 
Jess Shankleman
February 8, 2017, 9:00 PM PST

Coal surpassed as second-biggest potential source of capacity
Intermittency of wind leaves coal producing more power
Wind farm developers installed more power than any other form of energy last year in Europe, helping turbines to overtake coal in terms of capacity, industry figures show.

European wind power grew 8 percent, to 153.7 gigawatts, comprising 16.7 percent of installed capacity and overtaking coal as the continent’s second-biggest potential source of energy, according to figures published Thursday by the WindEurope trade group. Gas-fired generation retained the largest share of installed capacity.

With countries seeking to curb greenhouse gas emissions that causes climate change by replacing fossil fuel plants with new forms of renewable energy, investment in wind grew to a record 27.5 billion euros ($29.3 billion) in 2016, WindEurope’s annual European Statistics report showed.






“Wind and coal are on two ends of the spectrum,” said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for WindEurope, in an e-mail. “Wind is steadily adding new capacity while coal is decommissioning far more than any technology in Europe.”

The group underscored that wind, which only produces power intermittently, hasn’t yet overtaken coal share in total power generation.

European wind investment increased 5 percent in 2016 from a year earlier driven by the offshore segment that attracted 18.2 billion euros, the report said. That offset a 29 percent investment decline in the onshore market.

*Gee whiz, what happened to all that noise about renewables failing in Europe?*


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> *Wind Overtakes Coal Power in Europe as Turbines Head Offshore*
> 
> *Wind Overtakes Coal Power in Europe as Turbines Head Offshore*
> by
> Jess Shankleman
> February 8, 2017, 9:00 PM PST
> 
> Coal surpassed as second-biggest potential source of capacity
> Intermittency of wind leaves coal producing more power
> Wind farm developers installed more power than any other form of energy last year in Europe, helping turbines to overtake coal in terms of capacity, industry figures show.
> 
> European wind power grew 8 percent, to 153.7 gigawatts, comprising 16.7 percent of installed capacity and overtaking coal as the continent’s second-biggest potential source of energy, according to figures published Thursday by the WindEurope trade group. Gas-fired generation retained the largest share of installed capacity.
> 
> With countries seeking to curb greenhouse gas emissions that causes climate change by replacing fossil fuel plants with new forms of renewable energy, investment in wind grew to a record 27.5 billion euros ($29.3 billion) in 2016, WindEurope’s annual European Statistics report showed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Wind and coal are on two ends of the spectrum,” said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for WindEurope, in an e-mail. “Wind is steadily adding new capacity while coal is decommissioning far more than any technology in Europe.”
> 
> The group underscored that wind, which only produces power intermittently, hasn’t yet overtaken coal share in total power generation.
> 
> European wind investment increased 5 percent in 2016 from a year earlier driven by the offshore segment that attracted 18.2 billion euros, the report said. That offset a 29 percent investment decline in the onshore market.
> 
> *Gee whiz, what happened to all that noise about renewables failing in Europe?*


Installed capcity is irrelevant actual output is all that matters
You can't use electricity that is never produced and 75% of that installed wind capacity will never be produced


----------



## Old Rocks

Yet the europeans believe that wind is still worth doing. Hmmmmmmmm....................


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Yet the europeans believe that wind is still worth doing. Hmmmmmmmm....................



yeah just like you they want to keep backing a failed energy plan but at least the Brits are looking into nuclear unlike us


and who but government thinks spending 4 million dollars for .5MW of energy is a good idea?

but hey I guess all those newspaper articles I have posted on the failure of wind in the UK and Germany are just fake news right?


----------



## hadit

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making my point for me.  I wonder if
> Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.
> 
> 
> 
> That figure comes from the Renewable energy folks, matthew's link.
> 
> Clean Energy: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity — Ceres
> 
> To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to invest $44 trillion in clean energy by 2050 – an average of $1.2 trillion per year for the next 36 years.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant.  Clean energy can have a positive impact completely separate from any impact on man caused global warming.


----------



## elektra

hadit said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making my point for me.  I wonder if
> Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.
> 
> 
> 
> That figure comes from the Renewable energy folks, matthew's link.
> 
> Clean Energy: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity — Ceres
> 
> To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to invest $44 trillion in clean energy by 2050 – an average of $1.2 trillion per year for the next 36 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's irrelevant.  Clean energy can have a positive impact completely separate from any impact on man caused global warming.
Click to expand...

bullshit, first and foremost, there is nothing that clean, when it comes to producing energy, you got to build those millions of Wind Turbines, and considering they are 400 feet tall producing the least amount of energy that means they use more raw materials per kwh than any other source of electricity. You are increasing the amount of CO2, they are not clean. That  is a lie. 

$44 trillion is irrelevant? That is your argument? Spending $44 Trillion on wind turbines will have a positive impact? Right, I get it, you have your Utopian dream, butterflies and angels, wonderful.


----------



## hadit

elektra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making my point for me.  I wonder if
> Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.
> 
> 
> 
> That figure comes from the Renewable energy folks, matthew's link.
> 
> Clean Energy: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity — Ceres
> 
> To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to invest $44 trillion in clean energy by 2050 – an average of $1.2 trillion per year for the next 36 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's irrelevant.  Clean energy can have a positive impact completely separate from any impact on man caused global warming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, first and foremost, there is nothing that clean, when it comes to producing energy, you got to build those millions of Wind Turbines, and considering they are 400 feet tall producing the least amount of energy that means they use more raw materials per kwh than any other source of electricity. You are increasing the amount of CO2, they are not clean. That  is a lie.
> 
> $44 trillion is irrelevant? That is your argument? Spending $44 Trillion on wind turbines will have a positive impact? Right, I get it, you have your Utopian dream, butterflies and angels, wonderful.
Click to expand...

Don't more more dense than you have to be.  Your irrelevant dollar figure came from somebody's irrelevant estimate of how much it would cost to impact global warming.  That's irrelevant and ridiculous.  You don't utilize alternative energy sources to combat something you probably don't have a prayer of impacting, you do it for other reasons, reasons that don't cost $44 trillion.


----------



## blenkins90

skookerasbil said:


> Renewable energy is a joke. Will be in 2050 too. Plenty on this in the ENVIRONMENT forum. Some point to these ridiculous growth #'s but they are compared only to themselves and not compared against fossil fuels. When they are, its laughable. Solar still providing only slightly more than 1% of our electricity.......wind about 4%. Will only double by 2050........not my projections but the projections in 2016 from the Obama administration.
> 
> Meanwhile......coal production in China will *DOUBLE* by 2050!!
> 
> Check this thread ( link below ) and find out all you need to know about the realities of renewable energy.......its a global warming alarmists worst nightmare!! These people never, ever post up any graph showing board members how renewables compare to fossil fuels.......all graphs compare growth rates for the specific renewable only. Progressives do this shit all the time. All fuckery all the time.
> 
> One of the most epic threads on the USMB btw >>
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.313851/*
> 
> 
> ..........5,200+ posts and 200,000 views!! Obliterates ALL of the arguments of the warmist k00ks.


 

As someone who has lived in China (for several years), doubling coal production is NOT a good thing.

Renewable energy is not a joke. Try sucking down smog everyday. I thank the EPA every time I get off the plane in this country now.


----------

