# Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
**** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
Wall Street Journal:

*Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels*
*In 2016, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—compared with $143 billion on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel-oil power plants,*
By Russell Gold - Wall Street Journal
June 11, 2018
Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

Global spending on renewable energy is outpacing investment in electricity from coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants, driven by Falling costs of producing wind/solar power.

More than Half of the power-generating capacity added around the world in recent years has been in renewable sources such as wind/solar, according to the Int'l Energy Agency.

In 2016, the latest year for which data is available, *about $297 billion was spent on renewables—more than twice the $143 billion spent on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel oil power plants,* according to the IEA. The Paris-based organization projects renewables will make up 56% of net generating capacity added through 2025.
Once supported overwhelmingly by cash-back incentives, tax credits and other government incentives, wind/solar-generation costs have fallen consistently for a decade, making renewable-power investment more competitive.

Renewable costs have fallen so far in the past few years that _*“Wind and Solar now represent the Lowest-cost option for generating electricity,”*_ said Francis O’Sullivan, research director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Energy Initiative.

This is beginning to disrupt the business of making electricity and manufacturing generating equipment. Both General Electric Co. and Siemens AG are grappling with diminished demand for large gas-burning turbines and have announced layoffs. Meanwhile, mostly Asian-based manufacturers of solar panels are flourishing....​
WSJ is by subscription, and I can't post the rest due to OP Space constraints.
However, if anyone requests I could post the balance at some point.
`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

LOL...

How many will die from this stupidity...

Its amazing the facts the left will leave out to promote the agenda..


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL...
> How many will die from this stupidity...
> Its amazing the facts the left will leave out to promote the agenda..


How many die due to the Current stupidity: polluted air, water, and food chain?

BACKFIRE time

Money Talks, Billy Bob Walks.
Blo me.
`


----------



## JGalt (Jun 11, 2018)

Investment is just spending money, and doesn't necessarily mean you'll see a profit from investing.

Anyone remember the billions of dollars of taxpayer's money Obama "invested" in bogus "green energy" and solar companies, only to see them go tits up?

I do.

Obama Legacy: List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies: Losses in the Billions for Taxpayers. None Succeeded.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, especially skookerAssbil, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...




How many solar panels do you have fruit loop?


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> How many solar panel do you have?


How many Oil Wells do you own?
(strawman moron)


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > How many solar panel do you have?
> ...




You answer a question withe a question.

A sure sign of public schooling.


I have a gas lease on my land cupcake.

Thanks for supporting fossil and nuclear with every milliWatt of electricity you use tinkerbell.

I also own oil stock pansy.


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> You answer a question withe a question.
> 
> A sure sign of public schooling.
> I have a gas lease on my land cupcake.
> Thanks for supporting fossil and nuclear with every milliWatt of electricity you use tinkerbell.


WTF do those [mini] ANECDOTES have to do with the Macro-Stats/Movement I posted in the OP.

You're Stupid.
Understand?
You argue by Stupid.
And NO one even claimed it was even near a majoritry of CURRENT use YET.
Whether I have solar panels on my roof, or you have gas leases, means NOTHING to the overall debate, and numbers I posted.
It's called:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=IA.....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.183....0.7x-Ker5ASb8
ie
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

*You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.*
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.​
`


----------



## JGalt (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > You answer a question withe a question.
> ...




So people DO care, It's cost-effective, creating jobs, a better planet, and coal is dead, yet you're still relying on coal-fired electrical generating plants and/or petroleum products for 100% of your energy?

Should I do as you say or should I do as you do?

I'm so confused right now.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > You answer a question withe a question.
> ...




Here cupcake:

When solar is less than in single digit percentages of course there is room for growth.

In the US it is 1.4 % of the total.

And you are jerking off to it.

Where does the other 98.6 % come from darling?

Solar power by country - Wikipedia


----------



## sparky (Jun 11, 2018)

Alt energy is the fastest growing niche in the electrical industry , if i were a younger man i would be looking for a NABCEP cert & a shingle to make good on it 

Being a smart entrepenure has little to do with all the political hubris , it's right time/place/commodity/service

~S~


----------



## sparky (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> I'm so confused right now.



I'll wager you'll be just as confused if it were explained to you

~S~


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...




But that 1.4 % is growing at a fast rate.

Wait until he figures out electric vehicles are powered by fossil and nuclear.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

sparky said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > I'm so confused right now.
> ...




Try?


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> So people DO care, It's cost-effective, creating jobs, a better planet, and coal is dead, yet you're still relying on coal-fired electrical generating plants and/or petroleum products for 100% of your energy?
> 
> Should I do as you say or should I do as you do?
> I'm so confused right now.


You're confused because you are also STUPID
The older Fossil Fules still produce a majority of our Power, but it's share of NEW generation is dropping dramatically.

*So you are indeed confused, or STUPID, because the OP's claim is Only for NEW power Gen, not old or Existing.*

Stupid and unable to grasp anything you read.
Such are the Trumpov Morons who dominate this ****hole.... USMB.
`


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

sparky said:


> Alt energy is the fastest growing niche in the electrical industry , if i were a younger man i would be looking for a NABCEP cert & a shingle to make good on it
> 
> Being a smart entrepenure has little to do with all the political hubris , it's right time/place/commodity/service
> 
> ~S~




1.4 % of the US power source.

Of course it can grow fast.

2.8 % is 100 % growth.

How can the other 98.6 % grow 100 %?


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > So people DO care, It's cost-effective, creating jobs, a better planet, and coal is dead, yet you're still relying on coal-fired electrical generating plants and/or petroleum products for 100% of your energy?
> ...




1.4 % is dramatic in your mind.

Again public schooling.


98.6 %  >>  1.4 % darling.


----------



## sparky (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...
















~S~


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> 1.4 % of the US power source.
> Of course it can grow fast.
> 2.8 % is 100 % growth.
> 
> How can the other 98.6 % grow 100 %?


I repeat:

You're confused because you are also STUPID
The older Fossil Fules still produce a majority of our Power, but it's share of NEW generation is dropping dramatically.

*So you are indeed confused, or STUPID, because the OP's claim is Only for NEW power Gen, not old or Existing.*

Stupid and unable to grasp anything you read.
Such are the Trumpov Morons who dominate this ****hole.... USMB.​
*And it's NOT just because of Low starting percentages, it is a MAJORITY - TWO THIRDS - of NEW Money.*

IOW, You're a high frequency low logic ahole.

*
EDIT: Note the Clown Chitwood high-frequency/SAME multi-posts to each of mine
He knows how INADEQUATE his debate is.*
`


----------



## JGalt (Jun 11, 2018)

sparky said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > I'm so confused right now.
> ...



Give it a try, you'd be surprised at how well I understand that "sustainable energy" is a fool's errand. Take Germany, for example: Their "green" energy policies are driving up energy prices and forcing hundreds of thousands of people into energy poverty. 

Residential German electricity prices are nearly three times higher than electricity prices in the U.S. As many as 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because of an inability to pay for rising energy costs. Germany’s feed-in tariff scheme provides lavish subsidies to renewable energy producers. On-shore wind has required feed-in tariffs that are in excess of 300 percent higher than market prices. Germany’s Renewable Energy Levy, which subsidizes renewable energy production, cost German households €7.2 billion ($9.6 billion) in 2013 and has gone up ever since. The cost to expand transmission networks to integrate renewables stands at $33.6 billion, which grid operators say accounts “for only a fraction of the cost of the energy transition.”

Of course, you leftists love the idea of this country being just like Germany. Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

sparky said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...




Still 1.4 % darling


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > 1.4 % of the US power source.
> ...




Listen and try and keep up.

How much can 98.6 % of the market grow?

100 %

50 %

25 %

10 %

2 %

?


----------



## JGalt (Jun 11, 2018)

sparky said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



Those are all nothing but glib "predictions." I could "predict" that unicorns will someday roam the earth and Skittles will spew from their butts, but I'd be wrong too.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > 1.4 % of the US power source.
> ...




So how much can 98.6 % of the market grow?

What is the highest level of math you completed tulip?


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...




They shut down their nukes and are paying for it.

Enjoy


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...




Sparky will check the makes for skittles


----------



## sparky (Jun 11, 2018)

<sigh>......pearls before swine yet again.......~S~


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > 1.4 % of the US power source.
> ...




Do you ever answer a question?

You can identify questions by the question mark "?".

You went to public school and did not study math or science.

QED


----------



## JGalt (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > So people DO care, It's cost-effective, creating jobs, a better planet, and coal is dead, yet you're still relying on coal-fired electrical generating plants and/or petroleum products for 100% of your energy?
> ...



Geez, bro. No need to pop a blood vessel.


----------



## JGalt (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...




Them damned union teachers have struck again.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > 1.4 % of the US power source.
> ...




Nice purse swing cupcake.

If my argument is so inadequate why not answer it?

Please answer the question darling?


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> 1.4 % of the US power source.
> Of course it can grow fast.
> 2.8 % is 100 % growth.
> 
> How can the other 98.6 % grow 100 %?


I repeat:

You're confused because you are also STUPID
The older Fossil Fules still produce a majority of our Power, but it's share of NEW generation is dropping dramatically.

*So you are indeed confused, or STUPID, because the OP's claim is Only for NEW power Gen, not old or Existing.*

Stupid and unable to grasp anything you read.
Such are the Trumpov Morons who dominate this ****hole.... USMB.​
*And it's NOT just because of Low starting percentages, it is a MAJORITY - TWO THIRDS - of NEW Money.*

IOW, You're a high frequency low logic ahole.

*
EDIT: Note the Clown Chitwood (and Galt) high-frequency/SAME multi-posts to each of mine
They know how INADEQUATE/LOST their debate is.*
`


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...




Think of the pension they will get for not educating abu afak.


----------



## JGalt (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...




I blame that damned "99 Luftballons" song. Germany was on their way to having decent nuclear power before that damned anti-nuclear song came out..


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


and how much power does each "investment" produce?


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> *But that 1.4 % is growing at a fast rate.*
> Wait until he figures out electric vehicles are powered by fossil and nuclear.





Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> *
> Still 1.4 % darling*





Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> Listen and try and keep up.
> *
> How much can 98.6 % of the market grow?*
> ....





Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> Here cupcake:
> *When solar is less than in single digit percentages of course there is room for growth.
> In the US it is 1.4 % of the total.
> *
> ...


*It's Solar and Wind, and you are Way Off.*

US Energy Information Administration:

How much of U.S. energy consumption and electricity generation comes from renewable energy sources? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

*How much of U.S. energy consumption and electricity generation comes from renewable energy sources?*

*In 2017, renewable energy sources accounted for about 11% of total U.S. energy consumption and about 17% of electricity generation.*​

You can pull up your pants now BOY
I'm done with you.


*EDIT*
*Note the DISHONEST/FAILED TROLL Chitwood repeats ONLY SOLAR Below in #45.*
*Solar alone was never claimed by me or the OP.*
*He's posted the Irrelevant number 8 times in an effort to cover His FAIL.*
*Last-wording Juvenile TROLL Lost.*
`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

sparky said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


And for every watt of solar and wind a fossil fuel plant must be fired up and on standby for when it fails, which is multiple times a day.  This creates grid instability and potential for total grid collapse.. Just ask the idiots in Australia how that worked out for them... The outputs from these plants would be better served by eliminating the enviro wacko crap that they do not get charged with.  Wind and solar need to pay the price for backup generation that is required for them to function.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > and how much power does each "investment" produce?
> ...


I take it that fact is inconvenient


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > Here cupcake:
> ...


And only 1% is actually functioning at any given time...


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > *But that 1.4 % is growing at a fast rate.*
> ...




Solar power by country - Wikipedia


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

Manonthestreet said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...


With the US, EU, Britain, Germany,  Australia, and many others ending subsidies, those 'profitability' margins are about to go into the toilet..


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Alt energy is the fastest growing niche in the electrical industry , if i were a younger man i would be looking for a NABCEP cert & a shingle to make good on it
> ...



Progressives are master's of the art of conveying fakery with statistics as your post astutely points out.

"Growth" statistics....always the fake play by progressives and accepted only by suckers and the uninformed. When the progressive argument has to answer the question, "As compared to what?"....it free falls like a stone in water.

Boob job analogy is necessary here and highly instructive....

So a woman goes for a boob job to get bigger boobs. Increases her boob size 100%. Impressive as hell huh? Who ca nt wait to see those boobs . Except s0ns if she was flat chested to begin with.. Might be highlighted in the profile narrative but not in the photos.. She might be winning a boob contest with progressive men but nobody else!!!!!

Accordingly, with renewable energy once you take a closer look you are thoroughly unimpressed. When put in perspective right next to fossil fuels renewable energy is a total joke. Despite the lofty statistics put forth by progressive frauds, a comparative look at any graph of fossil fuel used for energy versus renewable energy is like standing the A cup boob job woman next to Kim Kardashian.

Don't take my word for it....go take a gander over the the EIA government website and check the Obama administration energy projections from 2016 ( released about a year ago ). See where renewable energy will be in 2040 compared to coal, oil and natural gas!!

I've posted up the graph more times and I can remember. Will post it up by request only I'm too damn tired and getting tired of all the winning in here!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2018)

Throw enough mandates and subsidies at something, people will waste lots of money on it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...


Name plate maximum generating capacity....

He has no clue that value is decreased by actually functioning systems. 14-24% of name plate is average, which has been hovering around 17% at any given time for systems total.

All you need to do is ask the Brits how their wind production is going...  The last month has seen a 20% drop in wind velocity rendering their whole system inoperative and they don't have a clue why the winds have diminished..(most likely due to cold AMO and decreased solar output).  Just be glad it isn't winter time..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> Investment is just spending money, and doesn't necessarily mean you'll see a profit from investing.
> 
> Anyone remember the billions of dollars of taxpayer's money Obama "invested" in bogus "green energy" and solar companies, only to see them go tits up?
> 
> ...


*And you are a liar.* 

The U.S. Government Has Invested $34 Billion in Renewable Energy—and It’s Making a Profit

Is the United States government a savvier investor in green technology than Silicon Valley’s masters of the universe?

It sure looks like it, judging from the U.S. Department of Energy’s new report on the performance of its $34.3 billion portfolio of investments in solar power plants, wind farms, and other renewable energy projects. The Obama administration in 2009 charged the DOE’s Loan Programs Office with jump-starting cutting-edge green technology ventures deemed too risky and expensive to attract cash from private investors.







As of September, that portfolio had a loss rate of 2.28 percent and has made a profit of $30 million.

The typical loss rate for a venture capital firm’s portfolio? As many as 40 percent of those companies fail, according to a 2012 Harvard Business School study.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...


*Well, stupid people are easily confused.* 

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

The U.S. set a new renewable energy milestone in March, in data released Wednesday. For the first time, wind and solar accounted for 10 percent of all electricity generation, with wind comprising 8 percent and solar coming in at 2 percent.

The report was published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration(EIA), which collects and disseminates environmental data that is used to inform policymakers.

Wind and solar generation typically peaks in the spring and fall when there is less energy demand, and the EIA expects April to continue the record-setting 10 percent trend. That 10 percent mark is expected to slip in summer months, but 2016 saw an overall growth in renewables.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...


*You should be.*

More than 94% of net new electricity capacity in the USA from renewables in 2017 – emissions down 1%

In 2017, the United States built about 28.5GW of electricity generating infrastructure – 25GW of it utility-scale and about 3.5GW of distributed (<1MW) solar power. Wind and solar were 55.4% of the 28.5GW overall total, and about 49.2% of the utility-scale total (>1MW).

When subtracting the 11.8GW of utility-scale fossil retirements tracked by the EIA, the net new volume of US generation was 16.7GW of generating capacity, with 94.7% of that coming from renewables.

Along with this positive news, are projections that in 2017 the USA lowered its total CO2 emissions by approximately 1% versus 2016’s total. This number is lesser than the years from 2005-2016 when we saw emissions fall an average of 1.6%.

The EIA measures all solar power generation capacity in AC values.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

JGalt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...


*Here is some more confusion for your poor little room tempreture IQ;*

Renewable Energy Surges to 18% of U.S. Power Mix

Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016, with the shift driven by new solar and wind projects, the end of droughts in the West, and a dip in the share of natural gas generation. Meanwhile, both greenhouse gas emissions from power generation and consumer spending on power declined.

Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008, as coal’s share crashed in the same period from 48% to 30%. And while the Trump administration has signaled a desire to cut funding for renewable energy and efficiency programs, the trends seem set to continue thanks to market forces.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


18% of electrical generation by renewables in 2017, more this year, and even more next year. And then there are those that put adequate solar on their roof, with battery storage, and power their vehicle and home themselves.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2018)

*Moderation Message:

Deleting 7 posts. All 100% personal noise and flaming. This has to be done ON the TOPIC. Warnings/bans for those that continue to get personal..  If you got a deletion alert -- consider yourself warned. This thread will be monitored.. 


*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Investment is just spending money, and doesn't necessarily mean you'll see a profit from investing.
> ...



$30Mill on $30Bill?  OK --- not bragging material. How'd they hide all the losses? Because AMERICAN solar died a pretty horrible death under the OBama Admin..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

LOL The Dept. of Energy goal is not a profit, but the development of new sources of energy, so they did, indeed, achieve their goal. 18% of the electrical energy produced in the US coming from renewables in 2017 is proof of that success.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Not hard to do when you're counting the legacy giant contribution of ancient hydro. Which always was about 12% of the grid supply..  Whooptie.... Then you have the issue of surveys like this quoting PLACARD capacities. Which are NEVER reached in operation and amount to a 1/3 of the exaggerated numbers. 

Problem is --- you're not obsoleting ANYTHING from the mix. Since it goes dark at night and dim in the mornings/evenings and wet occasionally -- you STILL NEED EVERYTHING YOU HAD BEFORE.  In fact, a lot of fossil plants idle or run at low output even WHEN solar is supplying it's 8 hours a day or less. You CAN NOT JUNK them. And they become pyhririas as you drain their profit. So people would eventually literally DIE if you went further than an HONEST 12% or 15% from solar.   

Won't even DISCUSS wind. It's the Dutch Tulip bubble of the 21st century all over again..


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> $30Mill on $30Bill?  OK --- not bragging material. How'd they hide all the losses?* Because AMERICAN solar died a pretty horrible death under the OBama Admin..*


BS.
There was a famous Bankruptcy of a Govt subsidized co because the Smart Chinese were targeting that industry. They also put the largest German Solar co out.

Does this look like "death" to you?
looks more like an Obama EXPLOSION to me.

Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia






*GAME OVER.*
`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Investment is just spending money, and doesn't necessarily mean you'll see a profit from investing.
> ...


Making a profit my ass...

Let me know when they start paying for the spin up reserve that must operate 24/7/365..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2018)

Gee.. Time for a stock market update on Solar ETFunds boys and girls..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > $30Mill on $30Bill?  OK --- not bragging material. How'd they hide all the losses?* Because AMERICAN solar died a pretty horrible death under the OBama Admin..*
> ...



Nope.. Chart over. Data ends in 2012 or so. You're missing 6 years.. For starters. 

A lot of subsidies have come off since then.. The old internet never purges it's shit.. 

Check the stock quote above.. That's the REAL investment marker...  Not how much chinese junk gets subsidized by stupid ass bureaucrats...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Emissions are down because of retrofitted plants to CNG... not due to wind and solar....  Read your own damn link!


----------



## abu afak (Jun 11, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Gee.. Time for a stock market update on Solar ETFunds boys and girls..



*1. I made an ASS out of you and your claim showing EXLOSION of Solar from 2008-2012.*

*2. "Solar ETF Funds" (LOFL) ONLY SHOWS THE CHINESE TARGETING I NOTED.. and Increased Competition/PRODUCTION*

DISHONEST GRAPH
RESIGN YOUR POST

3. Here is thru 2016
WIND AND SOLAR as per the OP






*Game Over 2

And you are a  DISHONEST MFer.
Who didn't post output but a deflecting graph.

You are NOT smart enuf to debate me. *


----------



## Jroc (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


its called government mandates and regulations... that gap will narrow with the Trump presidency for 8 years


----------



## Jroc (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Gee.. Time for a stock market update on Solar ETFunds boys and girls..
> ...



Lots of dead birds there


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...
> ...


Your so busy blowing yourself you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass..

Again with the lying about what conservatives believe??...  It was Obama clones who polluted the Colorado and the democrap idiots in Flint.. Your projection of your own faults is noted.

Now Abu A fucky, Do you really believe that what you posted is factual? Do you believe your green fan monsters will save you? How reliable are they?  or your solar panels...  do they work 24/7/365?  Do you believe, Like Old Crock, that name plate values are what they produce 24/7/365 ?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > $30Mill on $30Bill?  OK --- not bragging material. How'd they hide all the losses?* Because AMERICAN solar died a pretty horrible death under the OBama Admin..*
> ...


Fucking moron...

Installed capacity is *NOT* operating reality...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Gee.. Time for a stock market update on Solar ETFunds boys and girls..
> ...



I'm smart enough not to be TROLLED by you. That's for certain. All those numbers have to get divided by 3 or more. And it's FUCKING WIND. The source you can't write a contract for. 

Hi --- I'm from Pennsylvania Electric System operator -- I'd like to buy 450MWatts of wind for next Tuesday from 4AM to Noon.  What's the price? 

Oh -- Tuesdays are bad for us lately maybe we could supply 15% on Tuesday and the rest spread out over the rest of the week?  

Are you fucking kidding me? You ever SEE the daily production charts from a fucking wind farm? I'm betting your troll ass never has. Kinda IMPORTANT to such an "expert" like yourself -- dontchathink? 

Wind Energy in Australia | April 2018 | Aneroid

Uncheck all the black boxes at the bottom of the graph except VIC1 and then NSW1.  WHERE is the energy gonna come from when the all the wind in Victoria or New S. Wales dies in 15 minutes????


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2018)

If you're too lazy or incompetent to click the buttons on the Australian Wind panel reports. Here's a monthly from one of the BEST SITED wind farms in the world in Denmark..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2018)

Those production charts from wind farms show exactly how deluded and punked you've been. THey are NOT "an alternative" in any sense of the word. They are AT BEST a very sketchy supplement. 

There's a LOT of engineering and system design even to work wind into a system grid without destabilizing it. And most of the numbers you're porking out on are happy knumbskull numbers without any reality attached to them. 

Go FIND me a reliable wind farm that is an "ALTERNATIVE" to anything..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 12, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Those production charts from wind farms show exactly how deluded and punked you've been. THey are NOT "an alternative" in any sense of the word. They are AT BEST a very sketchy supplement.
> 
> There's a LOT of engineering and system design even to work wind into a system grid without destabilizing it. And most of the numbers you're porking out on are happy knumbskull numbers without any reality attached to them.
> 
> Go FIND me a reliable wind farm that is an "ALTERNATIVE" to anything..


WAPA (Western Area Power Administration) is currently placing huge capacitor banks in its switching stations in an effort to keep brown outs from happening during lag times in power switching. Its not a perfect solution but at least its one that will keep the grid from crashing in less than two second power outages or drop offs.

they are using their DC/DC shunts between grids to do this.


----------



## abu afak (Jun 12, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


My chart was edited to this one.

YOU Lied or Ignorantly said Solar "Died" under Obama.
*Production went up BIG time and not just from 2008-2012.
Both of his 2 terms.*






You DISHONESTLY OR IGNORANTLY posted the Stock Performance of Solar ETFs (LOFL), which only Confirms the Competition/Increased Production, and Chinese predatory activity I Introduced/Explained before you Perverted and Conflated industry stock prices with production.

GAME OVER #3.
Again: You either Dishonestly or Ignorantly Conflated Solar Stock performance with Solar Output.
Not smart enough or honest enough to debate me.
Still
`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Those production charts from wind farms show exactly how deluded and punked you've been. THey are NOT "an alternative" in any sense of the word. They are AT BEST a very sketchy supplement.
> ...



The Japanese have the engineering EXACTLY correct. They do not allow wind installations without a 15 minute capacity bank of "super-caps" or batteries. It literally DOUBLES the cost of the installation, but it prevents outages and system damage. 

And you STILL get the sketchy, unreliable and UNMARKETABLE performance that those daily production charts show..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


And yet with all this name plate installation wattage, we are still at or below 2% of total grid function.. And its wholly unreliable..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



You're not even UNDERSTANDING the issue. You keep posting the same shit and ignore the MARKET performance and the ACTUAL WIND performance issues. 

Your chart Your chart -- it doesn't even have a labeled Y axis. You have any solutions for the UNDERLYING FLAWS in wind power that I showed you for the very 1st time? 

If the technology is that great -- why does the MARKET INVESTMENT look like a dead cat bouncing? And you're DEAD WRONG and totally unprepared for all this NEW information I'm giving you. The FAN ETF is a GLOBAL Wind index fund. Not just a US Wind Index fund. 






The TAN ETF that I posted for Solar is also a GLOBAL index fund. No investment confidence in either. Are all those economic experts and investors WRONG there Abu???


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2018)

No comments on the incredibly sketchy and unreliable production output of a well designed wind farm? I don't even like discussing wind "as an alternative"..


----------



## sparky (Jun 12, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



3-4 decades ago PV and wind were the penchant of off grid renegades , hippy dippys ,unusual sorts.  Now Joe average is considering them in his yard or roof.

The technological advances along with the ROI make it all attratctive ,most poco's are along for the ride for a plethora of reasons, REP (rural electrification program) era infastructure, aging nuke facilities, foreign owned generation, etc ad nasuem.

It's a juggernaut industry who's only reins are political ignorance , and mostly in America where corporatism rules ,and science is their b*tch

Other countries seem to have matured beyond that 

~S~


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 12, 2018)

sparky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


No!

Other nations have had massive grid failures and rolling brown outs..  They are now looking for other alternatives...  Look at the UK who have lost 20% of their wind velocity, rendering their wind output useless. they are scrambling to find energy.


----------



## abu afak (Jun 12, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> No!
> 
> Other nations have had massive grid failures and rolling brown outs..  They are now looking for other alternatives... * Look at the UK who have lost 20% of their wind velocity, rendering their wind output useless. they are scrambling to find energy.*


LOL

*Renewable energy in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia*

From the mid-1990s renewable energy began to contribute to the electricity generated in the United Kingdom, adding to a small hydroelectricity generating capacity. The total of all* renewable electricity sources provided for 14.9% of the electricity generated in the United Kingdom in 2013*,[4] reaching 53.7 TWh of electricity generated.

*In the second quarter of 2015, renewable electricity generation exceeded 25% and Coal generation for the first time.*[5]

*As of 2nd quarter 2017, renewables generated 29.8% of the UK's electricity.*[6]

Renewable energy contributions to meeting the UK's 15% target reduction in total energy consumption by 2020, in accordance with the 2009 EU Renewable Directive, totalled 5.2% in 2013 as measured in accordance with the methodology set out in the Directive.[4] By 2016 provisional calculations show that the figure had risen again to 8.3% of energy consumption (all sources) coming from renewable sources in 2015.[7]

Interest in renewable energy in the UK has increased in recent years...
[......]
*Wind*
Wind power delivers a growing fraction of the energy in the United Kingdom and at the beginning of January 2015, *wind power in the United Kingdom* consisted of 6,546 wind turbines with a total installed capacity of just under 12 gigawatts: 7,950 megawatts of onshore capacity and 4,049 megawatts of offshore capacity.[30]
The United Kingdom is ranked as the world's sixth largest producer of wind power, having overtaken France and Italy in 2012.[31]
*Polling of public opinion consistently shows strong support for wind power in the UK, with nearly 3/4 of the population agreeing with its use, even for people living near onshore wind turbines.* Wind power is expected to continue growing in the UK for the foreseeable future.
[......]




​
*Billy_BOOB just points to ANECDOTES and folklore.
`*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > No!
> ...


Your a liar!

But then that's the leftard way...

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf

Analysis: The impact of La Niña on UK wind power.

Cooling oceans are lowering wind speeds across them... I would tell you to read up on the issues but you must first know how to read technical documents.  You have proven yourself ignorant of how these systems work and why they fail...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...
> ...


post those stats punk!  you wish to make a comment like that you best be prepared to back it up.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2018)

sparky said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > I'm so confused right now.
> ...


no way you could.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2018)

sparky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



It's funny you should mention off-grid applications for solar and wind. There are SEVERAL off-grids apps that make superb sense.. Instead of PRETENDING that these are "plug-in alternatives" for other 24/7/365 sources of power. 

The main NEGATIVES of wind/solar which is lack of storage and scheduling actually become positives if you're PRODUCING and STORING some quantity that is valuable.  Desalinization is a PRIME example. Because you deal with "stored averages" of the water you produce and "brown-outs" are not likely to matter in the long run. 

The same thing could be done to produce a hydrogen intrastucture for refilling fuel cell technologies. Both for fixed site and mobile power. The fuel you produce has NO RECURRING energy charges to produce. There'd be a line out the door for franchises and competitors lining up to produce hydrogen fuel this way. 

Both wind and solar are very mature technologies. That's why there's a bloodbath on pricing. They've had their shot. Expect no miracles here. Without awesome site development breaks, subsidies and even waivers on Enviro assessments, there'd be no "fools rush" to be a power provider using these "supplements" which are NOT alternatives..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > No!
> ...




An AWESOME 12GWatts of Wind in the UK huh little man? There's a lot of wind in every one of your posts. 

How about we CHECK RIGHT NOW as to what that 12Gwatt Wind CAPACITY is generating RIGHT NOW THIS MOMENT in UK...
G. B. National Grid status
As I read the gauge - -  it's producing a MERE 1.8GWatts of power..     Go read it again BEFORE you reply. MAYBE -- it will be producing 20% of the capacity those idiots PAID FOR -- or maybe it will be producing NOTHING..  

Since it;s already pretty dusky over there -- solar is producing buttkiss. But NEVER FEAR -- the Brits SOLD their folks on "Biomass Conversion" which is NEITHER CLEAR OR GREEN but counts as an "renewable".  So despite the screams of all well meaning Greenies that BEGGED for biomass incinerators and now HATE THEM -- the Brits will burning GARBAGE all night long to get their "green" numbers up..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2018)

If you DARE Afak -- Go blow up the chart for the YEARLY Hydro/Pumped/Solar/Bio production results at that UK Real Time Energy dashboard.... Don't know why they don't include wind.  Probably too damn embarrassing..


----------



## sparky (Jun 12, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Other nations have had massive grid failures and rolling brown outs



Euro nations rebuilt after WW2, because they had to,infastructure is always the first target

In general, their smaller nation states have smaller and far better power systems than we do 

Euro sparks who visit are appauled at the state of our aging infastructure , regularly posting it all in their spark chat rooms for a laugh

~S~


----------



## sparky (Jun 12, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> The main NEGATIVES of wind/solar which is lack of storage and scheduling actually become positives if you're PRODUCING and STORING some quantity that is valuable.



well yes, the short version would be true sine inversion.  

when they introduced that, it was a HUGE battle , because the poco's knew no storage was necessary to net meter

they held it all up in UL for years before it hit the market

~S~


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2018)

sparky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The main NEGATIVES of wind/solar which is lack of storage and scheduling actually become positives if you're PRODUCING and STORING some quantity that is valuable.
> ...



The "pocos" have no problem with a slapping a NON UL APPROVED smart meter on the side of my house and telling me to "stuff it" when I asked for a safety certification. I doubt that UL was the issue. 

Folks who get ripped off turning their home into an energy business are just dupes. I sure HOPE they get something out of it, but it's a really a STATEMENT -- not an investment. Especially if you look at the insurance rates for storm replacement or roof repairs.


----------



## sparky (Jun 12, 2018)

Don't get me started on those stupid smart meters Flac,  and all i want on my roof is shingles thanks, now those trackers are a whole different trip

~S~


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jun 12, 2018)

JGalt said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...



*What Makes the Green Giant Jolly
*
But if your sales pitch is slick enough, you'll get a lot of suckers to invest in the idea.  Tell them that all the idealistic young people will buy that Trayvon treat only from unicorns.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> How about we CHECK RIGHT NOW as to what that 12Gwatt Wind CAPACITY is generating RIGHT NOW THIS MOMENT in UK...
> G. B. National Grid status




Update at 10:15PM Central Time -- that MASSIVE 12GWatt wind capacity in the UK went from producing just 1.8GWatt this afternoon to CURRENTLY (drum roll please)    a ridiculously PUNY output of 0.41 GWatt !!!!

THAT'S why I laugh at people who shove graphs in your face and BRAG about how much "wind" any country has bought.  Literally would have been a better investment to take that money and TOSS it into the wind..

Tonight -- with the coal plants shuttered, the moguls of enviro snark in the UK are getting thru the night literally by BURNING GARBAGE and tree waste and PRETENDING they are green.. If you call it "renewable", you can trick folks into having garbage incinerators in their neighborhoods rather than coal plants.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2018)

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt commented at his monthly column at Die kalte Sonne site here on solar activity, CO2 and coal power in Germany.

Fritz Vahrenholts Sonnenkolumne 5/18: Klimaempfindlichkeit gegenüber CO2 und die Kohlekommission | Die kalte Sonne

clip:   In China kommen 280 000 MW hinzu in Indien 174 000 MW. Zum Vergleich: die gesamte Braunkohlenflotte Deutschlands hat eine Kapazität von 22 700 MW. 1600 Kohlekraftwerke werden weltweit in 62 Ländern gebaut, die meisten übrigens durch chinesische Kraftwerksbauer und mit Hilfe chinesischer Kredite. So etwa 15 300 MW in Pakistan, 16 000 in Bangladesh, selbst Myanmar 5100 MW. (Quelle : South China Morning Post). Insgesamt wird die Kohlekraftwerkskapazität weltweit um 43 % erweitert.

Translation: In China 280,000 MW and in India 174,000 MW are going to be added. By comparison: the entire brown coal fleet in Germany has a capacity of 22,700 MW. 1600 coal-fired power plants will be built in 62 countries across the world, most of them, by the way, will be built by Chinese power plant builders with the help of credits from China. Approximately 15,300 MW in Pakistan, 16,000 in Bangladesh, and even Myanmar with 5100 MW. (Source: South China Morning Post). In total, coal power plant capacity will expand by 43% worldwide.

An increase of 43% in coal power.  You greenies sure know how to kid yourselves.  If your idiocy weren't costing me money, it would be laughable.


----------



## sparky (Jun 13, 2018)

Anecdotally , my primary_ heat_ has been wood / coal for decades 

Coal isn't considered renewable ,sustainable , and niether is wood but should be , jmho

Of course, every energy source has it's pro's & cons.....


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jun 13, 2018)

sparky said:


> Of course, every energy source has it's pros & cons.....


*Memories of the Medieval*

You mean GreenHeads have their prose narrative, which is a con game.


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your a liar!
> 
> But then that's the leftard way...
> 
> ...


LOFL
You're not only a Liar you're an IDIOT.

I put up Multi-year stats. The overall and Growing Trend..
You put up a WEATHER ANOMALY "La Nina".

You MORON. A cyclical Weather event does NOT a trend make.
My Stats DO make the trend.

And you're so combative you 12 IQ Clown
`


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> If you DARE Afak -- Go blow up the chart for the YEARLY Hydro/Pumped/Solar/Bio production results at that UK Real Time Energy dashboard.... Don't know why they don't include wind.  Probably too damn embarrassing..


Another Dishonest/Fallacious/BS post.,
The usual False Challenge, a classic Burden Shift, etc.
Resign.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your a liar!
> ...


He is an idiot, but he is smart enough to not want to waste trillions on "green energy". So....smarter than you.  Low bar, I know.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > If you DARE Afak -- Go blow up the chart for the YEARLY Hydro/Pumped/Solar/Bio production results at that UK Real Time Energy dashboard.... Don't know why they don't include wind.  Probably too damn embarrassing..
> ...



Did ya even look? What is your impression of that AWESOME 12GW investment now that you've actually seen how BADLY it lives up to the CAPACITY ratings?

It's not a FALSE challenge. It's a FUNDAMENTAL "cut through the BS to the ISSUE" challenge. You resign..

It takes an investment of time to UNDERSTAND these issues. Too many people get the politicized "talking points for DUmmies" version of an issue like "alternative power sources".  I'm a scientist/engineer. I design things to work reliably and within their specifications. I'm not a used car salesman trying to polish up a flooded car from the Houston hurricane.

Go monitor that massive 12GW investment that you THINK is so wonderful. I've given you the tool to do so. Let me know when it EVER produces even 50% of 12GW.  It will be for a couple hours about 9 days of the year. I've seen the analysis..  And the day following, the UK will be BACK to burning garbage in incinerators and calling it "cleaner than coal"...


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Did ya even look? What is your impression of that AWESOME 12GW investment now that you've actually seen how BADLY it lives up to the CAPACITY ratings?
> ...


No, as I said, I'm smarter than you and didn't take the deflective Anecdote/BAIT.
(only wind in one country, instead of THE topic: Global Wind and Solar)

The OP and subsequent posts remain true despite your fallacious BS and new red herring.
Really, you're used to the usual 90 IQ clowns here, not those of us 50 points higher/smarter than you.
`


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Did ya even look? What is your impression of that AWESOME 12GW investment now that you've actually seen how BADLY it lives up to the CAPACITY ratings?
> ...







Were you not entirely brain dead you could go to the site and monitor it for a whole year.  Then you would see just how pathetic wind power is.  I have a suggestion for you.  Remove your home from the grid and go full on wind.  Let us know how that works out for you.  I am truly curious.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> No, as I said, I'm smarter than you and didn't take the deflective Anecdote/BAIT.
> (only wind in one country, instead of THE topic: Global Wind and Solar)
> 
> The OP and subsequent posts remain true despite your fallacious BS and new red herring.
> ...



Guess you only look at the pre processed, heavily biased information provided to you by your handlers.  The fact is that wind and solar are losers and result in more fossil fuel use...not less.

Have fossil fuels been substituted by renewables? An empirical assessment for 10 European countries - ScienceDirect

“*The installed capacity of wind power preserves fossil fuel dependency*. … Electricity consumption intensity and its peaks have been satisfied by burning fossil fuels. … *[A]s RES [renewable energy sources] increases, the expected decreasing tendency in the installed capacity of electricity generation from fossil fuels, has not been found*. Despite the high share of RES in the electricity mix, RES, namely wind power and solar PV, are characterised by intermittent electricity generation.  … The inability of RES-I [intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar] to satisfy high fluctuations in electricity consumption on its own constitutes one of the main obstacles to the deployment of renewables. This incapacity is due to both the intermittency of natural resource availability, and the difficulty or even impossibility of storing electricity on a large scale, to defer generation.  As a consequence, RES [renewable energy sources] might not fully replace fossil sources.”

“*The literature proves the existence of a unidirectional causality running from RES [renewable energy sources] to NRES [non-renewable energy sources]* (Almulali et al., 2014; Dogan, 2015; Salim et al., 2014). *This unidirectional causality proves the need for countries to maintain or increase their installed capacity of fossil fuel generation*, because of the characteristics of RES [renewable energy sources] production.”


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

westwall said:


> Were you not entirely brain dead you could go to the site *and monitor it for a whole year.  Then you would see just how pathetic wind power is. * I have a suggestion for you.  Remove your home from the grid and go full on wind.  Let us know how that works out for you.  I am truly curious.


Oh look!
The board's highest ranking MORON.

*"A whole year", is hardly long enough. It's WEATHER. (even 2++ years could be nino/nina or other cycle)
and in ONE country that's probably 1% of the Globe.
Compared to my OP: Global Stats.*

Now go back into the dugout, you weren't called dip****.
Your team needs someone more capable, not less.
`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Did ya even look? What is your impression of that AWESOME 12GW investment now that you've actually seen how BADLY it lives up to the CAPACITY ratings?
> ...



You're insufferable.  I showed you the GLOBAL investment market in wind and solar and I showed you WIND output production numbers from Australia, Denmark and the UK.. Are you not absorbing this massive gap in your knowledge about the unpredictable and sketchy performance of these alternatives? Did I SHOCK you? Or do have an explanation for the piss poor ACTUAL performance of these "massive" wind capacities you're quoting and touting. 

Seriously.. Did you think that wind was EVER an alternate to a nat gas or hydro or nuclear plant?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Were you not entirely brain dead you could go to the site *and monitor it for a whole year.  Then you would see just how pathetic wind power is. * I have a suggestion for you.  Remove your home from the grid and go full on wind.  Let us know how that works out for you.  I am truly curious.
> ...



I see you talking a lot...but I don't see you providing any evidence to support your claims.


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

To flacaltenn and the world's slowest SSD...

There is NO rebuttal to the OP numbers, and the Globe's dramatically shifting energy trend.
Just alotta smoke and dip*****.
`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Were you not entirely brain dead you could go to the site *and monitor it for a whole year.  Then you would see just how pathetic wind power is. * I have a suggestion for you.  Remove your home from the grid and go full on wind.  Let us know how that works out for you.  I am truly curious.
> ...



El nino/nina largely have no HUGE effect on wind production. It might shift the areas a bit, but the results are so entirely BAD for wind -- that you can't really tell much about el nino/nina cycles. If they AVERAGE 30% of their PURCHASED capacity --- it's a great year. Even if the majority of that power occurs within only 50 days or so of that year. So IF  el nino/nina had a 20% reduction effect -- it would only take the average down to 24% of the purchased amount. Depending on location it could also INCREASE..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your a liar!
> ...



*XXXX -- Mod Edit -- Excessive flaming. *

I didn't think a negative IQ was possible, but you have given us empirical evidence yours is...

Now would you be so kind to provide even one shred of evidence you have a clue about wind and solar failures?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> To flacaltenn and the world's slowest SSD...
> 
> There is NO rebuttal to the OP numbers, and the Globe's dramatically shifting energy trend.
> Just alotta smoke and dip*****.
> `



I think you've learned a lot here. It hasn't been an entire loss. You were totally unprepared for the ACTUAL facts on wind/solar performance and efficacy.  Maybe next time we'll get a more BALANCED picture of how worthy these technologies actually are for being "Alternatives" to anything.

They are supplements. Actually SOLAR is a supplement. Wind is a fantasy except for the off-grid applications I alluded to. Fixed PV solar is 50% down in output for 4 of the 8 hours it's available because of sun angle. So -- it's derated by 30% of PLACARDED capacity as well -- but has a more predictable output than wind that can be anticipated over the course of several days. Solar CAN relieve the Daytime Peak loads in a lot of places, but not everywhere. That relief in PEAK demand amounts to a MAXIMUM of about 15%. Since the summertime load at 10PM is 80% of daytime peaks in most developed countries and that BACKBONE generation must be preserved and rewarded financially. In addition the FULL PEAK with safety margins MUST be preserved for those snow/rainy/cloudy days.  So you are not REPLACING much of anything. You've just added a "daytime peaker" source that you can't depend on with solar PV.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> To flacaltenn and the world's slowest SSD...
> 
> There is NO rebuttal to the OP numbers, and the Globe's dramatically shifting energy trend.
> Just alotta smoke and dip*****.
> `



The OP was nothing more than an opinion piece...that qualifies as evidence in your mind?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2018)

Hey Abu -- If you look REAL QUICK LIKE at the Wind on the UK grid you can do a happy dance..



Full disclosure -- It's up to 7.6GW right now.  Do your happy dance. And let's check again in a couple hours huh?  *First time since LAST THURSDAY they are getting anything appreciable out of that 12GW investment. *

G. B. National Grid status


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Were you not entirely brain dead you could go to the site *and monitor it for a whole year.  Then you would see just how pathetic wind power is. * I have a suggestion for you.  Remove your home from the grid and go full on wind.  Let us know how that works out for you.  I am truly curious.
> ...






With a years worth of data you can get a very good idea whether the investment in your windfarm is worthwhile.  The Reno-Gazette Journal did a report back in March of 2012 where they reviewed all of the wind turbines in the Truckee Meadows.  They found that none produced anywhere near what the installers claimed.  The turbines that Reno bought, after a years generation didn't produce even 1% of the claimed return.  Reno has since pulled them down when it was calculated that the maintenance costs were far more than the amount of energy they would ever produce.  In the world of morons you are number one sweet cheeks.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2018)

westwall said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I understand that at present, there are over 10,000 windmills out of service in California alone and none of these are ever expected to be made serviceable again.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


When companies go bankrupt there is no one left to tear down the rusting piles of junk..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2018)

UK Met has named storm Hector creating heck in the Brit Isles. THAT will add a couple days of wind service to the wind drought they've had this month...

Storm Hector tracker - where and when will it hit and what's the latest UK weather forecast?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> UK Met has named storm Hector creating heck in the Brit Isles. THAT will add a couple days of wind service to the wind drought they've had this month...
> 
> Storm Hector tracker - where and when will it hit and what's the latest UK weather forecast?


wind speeds above 40 knots...  the wind mills will furl and only 50% output will be obtained from it.. When it gets above 60 knots they will disengage and furl to 100%


----------



## sparky (Jun 13, 2018)

Focusing on large wind farms doesn't paint *all *alt energy inefficent ,or a bad investment.

~S~


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2018)

sparky said:


> Focusing on large wind farms doesn't paint *all *alt energy inefficent ,or a bad investment.
> 
> ~S~



Only fuzzy little cute wind farms matter?  LOL... Sounds like the enviros who want "micro-hydro" projects that are enough to light one road sign..


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> I think you've learned a lot here. It hasn't been an entire loss. You were totally unprepared for the ACTUAL facts on wind/solar performance and efficacy.  Maybe next time we'll get a more BALANCED picture of how worthy these technologies actually are for being "Alternatives" to anything.
> 
> They are supplements. Actually SOLAR is a supplement. ....


This would be completely False.

I have "learned" no such thing.
*In fact, my OP demonstrates, those in the know, who've put in the time and effort, and who lay out Billions, have put out 2/3+ of the New energy generation money, have done so in Solar and Wind.*

Your and Billy Bob's deflections about the UK Alone (Cyclical Weather/Wind problem) hardly refutes that. There's more windmills on more farms every year.. and off more coasts Because ther ARE working.

That's what I find so disturbing about you.
*These intentional little deflections (anecdotes really) against the Vastly more knowledgable spending of the global Energy INDUSTRY professionals.
My post and numbers are from the WSJ, not Moveon or Slate.*
Money talks, BS Walks.
Take a walk. (and I hope YOU learned something)

Gameover.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I think you've learned a lot here. It hasn't been an entire loss. You were totally unprepared for the ACTUAL facts on wind/solar performance and efficacy.  Maybe next time we'll get a more BALANCED picture of how worthy these technologies actually are for being "Alternatives" to anything.
> ...




The appeal to authority.... Logical fallacy 101..

When you don't have a clue when your being lied too you have no point of view from which to see how you've been lied too..

YOU are a useful idiot.... A dupe...  A moron...nothing more..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> There's more windmills on more farms every year.. and off more coasts Because ther ARE working.


Bull shit!

In 2013 it was about 14,000..  today its bordering 36,000 in the US Alone.

WIND-WORKS: San Gorgonio Pass and the “Abandoned Wind Turbines” Near Palm Springs, California—an Update

Abandoned Eyesores Almost Certain to Proliferate Across the Maine Countryside Unless We Stop Them


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *
> The OP was nothing more than an opinion piece...that qualifies as evidence in your mind?*


LOL
Since I assume you can read, I think we can safely call that a Lie.
NUMBERS are given:
*$297 billion was spent on renewables—compared with $143 billion on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel-oil power plants...*

they are "app" but not even close.
It's Not like only 10% was spent on Solar and wind.
As I said just above to flacaltenn.
This is real Money from those in the know.
Two Thirds of new money by Industry professionals and experts, NOT mere "opinion"

Gameover II.
`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> In fact, my OP demonstrates, those in the know, who've put in the time and effort, and who lay out Billions, have put out 2/3+ of the New energy generation money, have done so in Solar and Wind.



In fact --- ALL your numbers demonstrate is how willing the various govts of the world are to HEAVILY SUBSIDIZE something faulty out of political convictions and faith. Who WOULDN'T want a huge tax break for investing in "clean green"..  THat's why so many corporations pay so little in taxes. They are LOADED to the gills with "energy investment" tax credits. AND -- they can advertise their green-ness to dupes like you that THINK -- all this is saving the planet. 

But it's not.. In reality..


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> The appeal to authority.... Logical fallacy 101..
> 
> When you don't have a clue when your being lied too you have no point of view from which to see how you've been lied too..
> 
> YOU are a useful idiot.... A dupe...  A moron...nothing more..


*The usual BLINDING IDIOCY from Billy Bob.

"Appeal to authority" Fallacy would be if I claimed "Kobe Bryant says Windmills work". Improper authority. 
Expert opinion, OTOH, is proper citation.

ie, If I cited Einstein on Relativity, that would be proper and excellent citation, Not the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Even you might understand this example.

You remain So Stupid as to be Undebatable.*
`


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The appeal to authority.... Logical fallacy 101..
> ...








Wow, you really are ignorant aren't you.  No, dummy, an appeal to authority is invalid the second that that authority has a financial stake in their opinion.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> You remain So Stupid as to be Undebatable.


Wow...  you are now moving on to personal attack rather than address the facts presented..  Your projecting your own fault here..


----------



## abu afak (Jun 13, 2018)

westwall said:


> Wow, you really are ignorant aren't you.  No, dummy, an appeal to authority is invalid the second that that authority has a financial stake in their opinion.


They have the "Financial stake" (and lotsa money) BECAUSE of Expert opinion and their own experience with previous solar and wind plants you Raging MORON.

*appeal to authority*
*You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.*
Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

*It's important to note that this fallacy should Not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence*....​
These are scientists and Experienced industry experts/Large companies. The vast majority, not their first go round.

Like many on this hideous board, you are too stupid to debate.
You have position here no less.
Disastrous proof of an unsolvable problem.

And that wraps it up.
*flacaltenn, ssdd, WTF-Telephone-pole-Billy_bob, and westwall
All gutted.*
`


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you really are ignorant aren't you.  No, dummy, an appeal to authority is invalid the second that that authority has a financial stake in their opinion.
> ...




And they ALL benefit monetarily from their positions.  Some of them even own "sustainability" companies which further mires them in the depths of conflict of interest.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 14, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you really are ignorant aren't you.  No, dummy, an appeal to authority is invalid the second that that authority has a financial stake in their opinion.
> ...


Let me explain to you whom you are dealing with..

I work for a power company these days as a meteorologist taking care of a 1800 turbine wind farm.  Supervisors come to me to get authorization for work on their sites.  I have multiple degrees and am currently a Phd candidate..  

I can run circles around your ignorance as can Flactenn and Westwall.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 14, 2018)

westwall said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


IMHO Abu is a troll or a crick/old crock sock puppet.  He has no inclination to debate. It is his way and we should be kept silent. Simply put, a left wing hack..

He has shown no working knowledge of the systems he spouts off about and is totally ignorant of why they fail or why they do not work.  He is a true believer of the church of AGW..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2018)

abu afak said:


> This would be completely False.
> 
> I have "learned" no such thing.
> *In fact, my OP demonstrates, those in the know, who've put in the time and effort, and who lay out Billions, have put out 2/3+ of the New energy generation money, have done so in Solar and Wind.*


*

Your OP is an opinion piece in a non scientific newspaper..guess you really haven't learned anything.  You have been given plenty of data regarding the inefficency of wind...do you think it is only the UK where windmills don't work?  Can you give any sort of scientific reason why their windmills don't produce but everyone elses do?*


----------



## sparky (Jun 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Let me explain to you whom you are dealing with..
> 
> I work for a power company these days as a meteorologist taking care of a 1800 turbine wind farm. Supervisors come to me to get authorization for work on their sites. I have multiple degrees and am currently a Phd candidate..



And i'm a lowly red necked blue collar garden variety spark who's worked with a multitude of poco's over the last 3 decades.

Folks get so _upset t_he feds are subsidizing alt energy, but they don't understand most poco's not only have _failing _infastructures they've sucked _every_ dime out of, many of our nuke plants aren't any better off, none of which can handle expected growth, much of it is threatened by _foreign_ producers.

Those very same power oligarchs who are empowered to administrate federal gifts alos have the unmitigated cognitive dissonance towards lobbying public service boards for the_ minimal _payback, on the backs of journalistic ventures creating an air of fascade , talk about biting the hand that feeds!

Anecdotally, much of the resi grid tie and/or stand alone systems have advanced to where i can't even keep up with the technology (and i do this every day) is selling like_ hot cakes _

_why?_

because the math works

~S~


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2018)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Throw enough  government mandates and subsidies at something, people will waste tons of money building it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And yet....."covailent bonds repel photons"


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jun 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > No, as I said, I'm smarter than you and didn't take the deflective Anecdote/BAIT.
> ...


*Continental Divide*

But Greenie energy still enjoys success in making snooty Urinepeeins feel morally superior to us crude and materialistic American peasants.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jun 14, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The appeal to authority.... Logical fallacy 101..
> ...


*Wolfgang Science*

Not recognized by nutty professors of philosophy,  you're committing the Discover's Fallacy, as in quoting Columbus about what continent he had landed in.  Or quoting Heisenberg, whose authoritarian irrationalism about indeterminacy explains why he became a Nazi.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jun 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


*Angel Dust*

Gov. BrownJunior will dispose of the disposal problem by beaming them up to the moon.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2018)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



At least he has a plan.  Most of them won't even acknowledge that windmills break down and become monuments formed of toxic waste that are not only dangerous to the environment but spoil the view as well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 14, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...






















Of New Power Generation, How Much is on the Roof? - 2017 Update - Institute for Local Self-Reliance

In spite of the senile old fool in the White House, solar and wind are doing very well.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 14, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



WOW !!! Pretty charts. Did you check in to see what that 12GW of wind investment is producing this week in the UK??  You sure do like to avoid the actual performance and metrics of these over-hyped over-subsidized trophies....   As for your charts --- 34% of almost nothing is still not much.. 

Grid demand has been in a dive for about a decade. No new capacity is really needed. Unless you're paying attention to the AGE of some of the workhorse generators. And see you really should be REPLACING them. But then -- that wouldn't be "new capacity" would it?  Oh well.  It was all very pretty..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 14, 2018)

Update on the 12GW of "installed wind"  in the UK.  Named storm Huberto (or whatever) is winding down. Wind is at 4.6GW and falling. The past 30 day AVERAGE is in the dumps at about 1.5 GW..  The weekly, monthly, daily charts are all here..

G. B. National Grid status

That's NOT what your charts say --- is it GoldiRocks?  Not exactly getting what they paid for -- are they?


----------



## sparky (Jun 15, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Which traditional poco's are  well aware of
The Grid Needs a Symphony, Not a Shouting Match - Rocky Mountain Institute
~S~[[/QUOTE]


----------



## sparky (Jun 15, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Update on the 12GW of "installed wind"  in the UK.  Named storm Huberto (or whatever) is winding down. Wind is at 4.6GW and falling. The past 30 day AVERAGE is in the dumps at about 1.5 GW..  The weekly, monthly, daily charts are all here..
> 
> G. B. National Grid status
> 
> That's NOT what your charts say --- is it GoldiRocks?  Not exactly getting what they paid for -- are they?



He's posted US , not GB stats Flacatenn

As to GB stats , your posting the low end, to which there is a high end,,,,,,



National Grid Control Room

✔@NGControlRoom

Yesterday #wind produced 33.7% of GB electricity followed by gas 28.7%, nuclear 20.0%, imports 7.2%, biomass 5.0%, solar 3.3%, hydro 0.9%, storage 0.8%, other 0.4%, coal 0.0%, national demand 783 GWh

UK Goes 55 Hours Without Coal Power, Breaking Record

~S~


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 15, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


From a fucking big battery that Musk has sold them. Just like in South Australia.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOL  Mr. Burger flipper, you are a lying little fuck. You have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of even the most basic scientific knowledge, while claim a degree in atmospheric physics. Not only are the wind and solar farms here to stay, they will be the primary source of electricity for this nation in my lifetime.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 15, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


LOL  By God, you are turning to lying like Mr. Westwall now. Yes, the old generators wear out, and have to be replaced. And the people with the money and knowledge replace them with wind and solar. In fact, they are actually shutting down some coal fired plants that are not worn out, simply because it is cheaper for the utility to put in wind and solar, and scrap the old coal plant. In the meant time, the residential and small business market continues to boom across the nation. And, yes, those are US figures, continuing the increase in renewables in spite of having an admin completely hostile to that form of energy generation. 

And the 129 MW/hr Tesla battery in South Australia has shown how well a grid scale battery functions in conjunction with renewables. So well, in fact, that it will have paid for itself in less than a year. A significant savings for the utility. And now the South Australian government and Tesla are working together to create a virtual power station that will save both the utility and the customer considerable money. But in your blind dislike of anything that is renewable, you won't even acknowledge how well these innovations are working. And remain blindly loyal to fossil fuels that are screwing up the environment.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



That fucking "big battery" is MINUTES of storage for a large wind field. And we've been through this before. Most of that "small storage" that you're finding is NOT Brown-out storage. That would DAYS for wind generation and cost most than Australia is worth. Those small storage stations are to sync and control frequency and phase between nodes on the grids..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*Never has wind or solar REPLACED a coal plant.* The coal plants are shuttering because Nat Gas won the war. You need 100% primary back-up for either wind or solar. That means, nuclear, hydro, gas or garbage or geothermal.  Take your pick. The wind and solar are REDUNDANT SUPPLEMENTS to allow throttling down of the primary generators whenever the wind blows or the sun is out.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> And the 129 MW/hr Tesla battery in South Australia has shown how well a grid scale battery functions in conjunction with renewables.



Hell NO -- it fucking does not. With 20 turbines at 6 Mwatts a piece -- that's ONE HOUR of field storage. Maybe TWO hours at 50% output.  I've explained this to you before. The LOCAL storage is for adjusting freq/phase OR for giving the central operator TIME to adjust other RELIABLE sources on the grid when wind starts or quits working for the week.. 

That's not GRID scale. That should be a REQUIRED component just to protect the grid operation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 15, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Your battery from the failed Musk enterprise lasts just 15 minuets and takes 18-24 hours to recharge..  Its a sham...

Your a lying little puke...


----------



## abu afak (Jun 17, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL By God, you are turning to lying like Mr. Westwall now. Yes, the old generators wear out, and have to be replaced. And the people with the money and knowledge replace them with wind and solar. In fact, they are actually shutting down some coal fired plants that are not worn out, simply because it is cheaper for the utility to put in wind and solar, and scrap the old coal plant. In the meant time, the residential and small business market continues to boom across the nation. And, yes, those are US figures, continuing the increase in renewables in spite of having an admin completely hostile to that form of energy generation. ..."


Solar is Replacing fossil sources especially re new energy, and almost certainly old, like coal.
*
The US has added more solar power than any other type of electricity in 2018 so far — more evidence of an energy revolution*
Jeremy Berke - Jun. 13, 2018
BusinessInsider
The US has added more solar power than any other type of electricity in 2018 so far — more evidence of an energy revolution

*

The US added more solar power than any other type of electricity in the first quarter of 2018.

Solar accounts for 55% of all US electricity added so far in 2018.

The number is evidence of a broader global shift: Investment in renewable energy for electricity is Overtaking fossil fuels.
*

According to a new report from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), a nonprofit group, the US solar market added 2.5 gigawatts of new capacity in the first three months of 2018, up 13% from the first quarter of 2017.

That accounts for 55% of all US electricity added in the first quarter of 2018, including fossil fuels and other forms of renewable energy.

"This data shows that solar has become a common-sense option for much of the US and is too strong to be set back for long," SEIA CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said in a statement."""

PS: and that doesn't even include Wind/other renewables.
With those, it's almost certainly app 2/3.
`


----------



## SSDD (Jun 18, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL By God, you are turning to lying like Mr. Westwall now. Yes, the old generators wear out, and have to be replaced. And the people with the money and knowledge replace them with wind and solar. In fact, they are actually shutting down some coal fired plants that are not worn out, simply because it is cheaper for the utility to put in wind and solar, and scrap the old coal plant. In the meant time, the residential and small business market continues to boom across the nation. And, yes, those are US figures, continuing the increase in renewables in spite of having an admin completely hostile to that form of energy generation. ..."
> ...



Any multiple of next to nothing is still next to nothing.


----------



## abu afak (Jun 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Any multiple of next to nothing is still next to nothing.


We're not talking 'multiples' here, we're talking MOST of the New electricity generation.
If that continues, the rest takes care of itself.
Most posters on your side realize this thread destroys their whole political persona/self-delusion and are trying to let this HAYMAKER die.
OUCH!
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL By God, you are turning to lying like Mr. Westwall now. Yes, the old generators wear out, and have to be replaced. And the people with the money and knowledge replace them with wind and solar. In fact, they are actually shutting down some coal fired plants that are not worn out, simply because it is cheaper for the utility to put in wind and solar, and scrap the old coal plant. In the meant time, the residential and small business market continues to boom across the nation. And, yes, those are US figures, continuing the increase in renewables in spite of having an admin completely hostile to that form of energy generation. ..."
> ...








Love the picture at your link.

How is Ivanpah doing lately?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2018)

Since PV is so much cheaper, more dependable, and lasts longer, it will beat out plants like Ivanpah. That was an experiment that showed the weaknesses of that type of system. Just as Fukushima and Three Mile Island showed the weaknesses of nuclear. But Ivanpah's failure endangered no one.


----------



## abu afak (Jun 22, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Since PV is so much cheaper, more dependable, and lasts longer, it will beat out plants like Ivanpah. That was an experiment that showed the weaknesses of that type of system. Just as Fukushima and Three Mile Island showed the weaknesses of nuclear. But Ivanpah's failure endangered no one.


And it didn't impress anyone else either.
Internationally, 2/3 of New INDUSTRY spending is on Solar and Wind.. and in 2018 so far in the USA, 55% of all Generating capacity is Solar.
`


----------



## abu afak (Jun 23, 2018)

*22 June 2018*
*India to bring forward 100,000 megawatts of new solar power*
India to bring forward 100,000 megawatts of new solar power

*The Indian Government has signalled its intention to launch the Largest tender for new solar power capacity in the world.*

Power Minister R K Singh told an event in New Delhi this week that the government plans to launch an unprecedented bid for 100,000 megawatts (MW) of new clean energy.

“The biggest tender was floated in Spain. We brought out a single tender of 10,000 MW which would be opened in July. Now we will bring out a bid of one lakh MW which would also include solar manufacturing and storage,” he told the event, according to The Economic Times. One lakh represents 100,000 units.

The 100,000MW tender, or 100 gigawatts (GW), would far exceed anything that has ever been constructed, although the minister didn’t provide exact timings for the project.

*Saudi Arabia has announced similar plans to build a $200 billion solar project*, with the first phase coming in at 7.2GW.

Mr Singh also told the audience that India has already brought forward 70 GW of renewable energy capacity, and has another 12.5 GW in development.

The minister has previously spoken of his confidence that India would surpass its target to build 175 gigawatts of renewable energy “well before 2022”.

It’s clear that India has started to accelerate its renewable energy ambitions in response to climate change and air pollution concerns. Last month it approved a 5,000 megawatt solar farm in the state of Gujarat, which will become one of the largest in the world. It has also adopted new targets this week to greatly increase the amount of offshore wind in the country.

A World Health Organisation report ranked India as having some of the most dangerously polluted cities in the world, something which hasn’t gone unnoticed within the government.​


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2018)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Any multiple of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
> ...



Tell me...do you actually believe your spew, or are you just yanking chains?  

If you actually believe it, then here is a clue for you....you are delusional.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Yes, I not only believe it, I've backed it throughout the thread, as well as my last you Whiffed on.
Do you have any Refutation of what I said...or just the usual empty wisecrack/trolling?
`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


Another way to say that is that wind and solar are not cost effective.  They cost twice the price for only a small percentage of the output of coal and natural gas.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


*That should make the Nation of China very happy since most of the panels are made in that Nation..*


----------



## abu afak (Jul 13, 2018)

Dan Stubbs said:


> *That should make the Nation of China very happy since most of the panels are made in that Nation..*


Actually that's not the issue here.. Emissions and world Power industry Decisions are.

And of course the US has a good percentage of it's own market tho probably a minority, but domestic panels will likely Grow due to Trump's 30% Tariff ON Solar Pnales leveled last January 1...before the rest just levied. And we have our own installation. 

We also import more oil than we export (10 mil vs 7 mil).
`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> > *That should make the Nation of China very happy since most of the panels are made in that Nation..*
> ...



What the hell are "world Power industry Decisions?"  Don't firms make their own decisions?


----------



## abu afak (Jul 13, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> What the hell are "world Power industry Decisions?"  Don't firms make their own decisions?


See the OP and others. Some by Firms, some by Countries.
Jointly, Firms are called "The Industry".
The usual Idiotic post by you.
`


----------



## abu afak (Jul 20, 2018)

*Most Popular Energy Source? Everyone Loves Solar*
Most Popular Energy Source? Everyone Loves Solar

A recent survey shows yet again that solar panels (and wind turbines) have a level of bipartisan popularity that would be the envy of any politician. That means we'll have something safe to talk about at the next barbecue after all.

The survey, from the Pew Research Center, had a lot of fascinating findings about the surprisingly high levels of agreement among Americans on a range of environmental issues, with strong majorities saying that the federal government is doing too little on water quality, air quality and climate change.

What really caught my eye, though, were the pieces specifically dealing with energy. The numbers on public support for expanding different energy sources, in particular, are stunning (figure 1).








Figure 1. Source: Pew Survey on Environment 2018


Think about that: 9 out of 10 adults in this country agree that more solar farms would be a good thing. And 8.5 out of 10 feel the same way about wind farms.

The survey report calls "[r]obust support for expanding solar and wind power ... a rare point of bipartisan consensus in how the U.S. views energy policies." And here's the breakdown by political leaning showing that bipartisanship (figure 2).








Figure 2. Source: Pew Survey on Environment 2018


Diving in even further doesn't do much to dispel the sense of bipartisanship (figure 3); even self-described "conservative Republicans" overwhelmingly favor expanding solar farms (80 percent) and wind farms (71 percent).








Figure 3. Source: Pew Survey on Environment 2018

[......]​


----------



## Kosh (Jul 21, 2018)

It is funny to see these threads from the AGW cult.

Especially when many European nations chose to dismantle their "alternative" energy projects so they could fun their over bloated social programs.

So it must not be as dire as everyone is saying, when social programs Trumps "alternative" energy..


----------



## abu afak (Jul 22, 2018)

Kosh said:


> It is funny to see these threads from the AGW cult.
> 
> Especially when many European nations chose to dismantle their "alternative" energy projects so they could fun their over bloated social programs.
> 
> So it must not be as dire as everyone is saying, when social programs Trumps "alternative" energy..


Remarkably Ignorant partisan post.

Ignoring all the evidence presented in my and others many articles throughout, including the OP showing 2/3 of New Industry spending around the world ("Cult") is going to renewables: Wind and Solar.. and continuing right through the last page and the post/posts on it.
`


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> ...


Stupid little finger boy liar. I and others have shown that by the kw/hr wind and solar are cheaper than either gas or coal. But yap on, post your lies and ignorance for all to see.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 24, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



That's only the case if you ignore the cost of 100% backup from a reliable power source like a coal fired power plant.  Even then, it's probably not true because you're assuming 100% availability when the reality is more like 6%.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 29, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


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


Of course, you really set the table for the idea that "Back up" may become JUST that: a subsidiary back up system to the Main renewable one.
`


----------



## abu afak (Aug 8, 2018)

*7 August 2018*
*France approves 720 megawatts of new solar power*
*The French government has given the go ahead to 103 new solar power projects.*
France approves 720 megawatts of new solar power

The Ministry of Ecology and Solidary Transition announced the news on Monday, which will bring forward an estimated 720 megawatts (MW) of new renewable power capacity.

*The latest approved bids are part of a new target set by the ministry to tender 2,450 MW of new solar energy each year. The department expects to tender two further rounds of 850MW each this year.*

So far, France has built a total of 8,300 MW in solar power and is looking to reach a total of 20,000 MW by 2023.

A statement from the ministry, reported by the Reuters news agency, said that the latest tender saw average power prices of 58.2 euros, a 5% decline on a similar auction last year.

Since taking office in 2017, President Emmanuel Macron has taken significant steps to increase France’s renewable energy capacity. The country has a historic dependence on nuclear power, which provides the vast majority of its electricity needs each year

To address this the administration has made new rulings to double the amount of onshore wind and increase France’s offshore wind capacity.

The appointment of longstanding environmentalist Nicolas Hulot to the ministry has also led to a flurry of climate commitments, including plans to ban new petrol cars and offshore oil & gas exploration.

Some of France’s major energy companies, such as EDF and Total, have seen an opportunity in the new mood music. Late last year EDF announced its Solar Power Plan to develop a huge 35 gigawatts of new solar in France by 2035. In June, the CEO of oil & gas giant Total confirmed on Twitter plans to invest in 10 gigawatts of solar within 10 years.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> *7 August 2018*
> *France approves 720 megawatts of new solar power*
> *The French government has given the go ahead to 103 new solar power projects.*
> France approves 720 megawatts of new solar power
> ...



We should be more like France, nearly 50% of their electricity is from nuclear.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...



Investment =\= success. 

It would be great if renewables could get to the point where they would be practical for common use, but so far it looks as if it’s a very long way off. Thank God for Trump making sure that we don’t abandon fossil fuels too soon.


----------



## Confounding (Aug 8, 2018)

Abu, do you not support the use of nuclear in the fight against AGW? Why? I see it differently. I know it can be dangerous, but it becomes less so the more we understand it. I feel like when it comes to fighting this problem we need to use all means at our disposal. Nuclear is very powerful and I think it'll be a big part of the shift from fossil fuels. Have you seen how many nuclear power plants China is building?


----------



## polarbear (Aug 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


Hmmm..Really?
* IEA warns of 'worrying trend' as global investment in renewables falls *
_Fossil fuels increased share of energy supply investment last year – the first time since 2014
The world’s energy watchdog has sounded the alarm over a “worrying” pause in the shift to clean energy after global investment in renewables fell 7% to $318bn (£240bn) last year.
The International Energy Agency said the decline is set to continue into 2018
Fossil fuels increased their share of energy supply investment for the first time since 2014, to $790bn, and will play a significant role for years on current trends, the IEA said._


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 8, 2018)

polarbear said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> ...


You will soon see the rusting piles of crap everywhere and in disrepair... Subsidies end next year for all of the Green energy programs in the US..  They will stand or fall very soon of their own accord.  Even power companies are now demanding that their back up power be paid for up front and as of December the burden is no longer on the power company but on the operators of the wind generators to make those paymnets.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


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


Even if that ever happens, you're still lying about the cost of renewable energy.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Germans found out the hard way:
Turbine Trouble: Ill Wind Blows for German Offshore Industry - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International
_Only recently, the offshore wind industry was seen as an opportunity to regenerate Germany's coast. But amid changing political attitudes and spiraling costs, several companies are struggling to survive. Is the wind boom over before it even really began?
......*For the time being, instead of producing energy, Riffgat is actually consuming it.* *To prevent the rotors from corroding in the salty air, they have to be supplied with electricity produced with diesel generators.*
............"The market has collapsed," says Ronny Meyer, the managing director of Windenergie Agentur (WAB), based in the northern port city of Bremerhaven. Riffgat developer EWE also doesn't want to invest in additional offshore turbines.
...........An estimated €1 billion ($1.3 billion) was invested in port facilities and factory buildings, and some 10,000 jobs were supposedly created.
Today, only seagulls are landing at the new harbor facility.
Of Bard's initial 1,000 employees, only those who will operate the wind farm will remain.
Operators of offshore wind farms depend on sufficiently high electricity prices to refinance their investments. "Although the cap on electricity prices was never approved, it made investors very anxious," says wind energy expert Meyer._
*And then there is this problem:
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study*
_The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — *the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.*
Prof Hughes examined the output of 282 wind farms —about 3,000 turbines in total — in the UK and a further 823 onshore wind farms and 30 offshore wind farms in Denmark.
Prof Hughes said his analysis had uncovered a “hidden” truth that was not even known to the industry. His report was sent to an independent statistician at University College London who confirmed its findings._


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 8, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


Yep...

Germany killed subsidies last year and now there are thousands of turbines consuming energy to keep them from falling apart... The collapse has begun..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...





Well when governments....




FUCKING MANDATE SOMETHING







You are such a retarded propaganda tool who hopes and hopes your audience is stupider then you.




.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 9, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Germans found out the hard way:
> Turbine Trouble: Ill Wind Blows for German Offshore Industry - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International
> _Only recently, the offshore wind industry was seen as an opportunity to regenerate Germany's coast. ....._


Your article is from August *2013*
LOFL

Wind power in Germany - Wikipedia

*Wind power in Germany* is a growing industry. The installed capacity was 55.6 gigawatt (GW) at the end of 2017, with 5.2 GW from offshore installations.
*The wind power share of the country's total electricity generation was estimated at 9.3% in 2010,[1] 10.6% in 2011,[2] 13.3% in 2015,[3] and 18.7% in 2017.[4]*

More than 26,772 wind turbines were located in the German federal area by year end 2015, and the country has plans for further expansion.[5][6] As of the end of 2015 Germany was the third largest producer of wind power in the world by installations, behind China and the USA.[7]​


bear513 said:


> Well when governments....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your post is Retarded you 12 IQ Monkey
You turn 3 lines into 20 Giantly spaced lines for the ILLUSION of volume/Content.
You Stupid Clown.

Like an old woman trying to tease her 5 remaining hairs into a hairdo with Hair spray.
You Low Brow/Lowenbrau Moron.
You are the absolute brain Bottom of this mb.
.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *7 August 2018*
> ...


On the contrary,


Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *7 August 2018*
> ...


 On the contrary, we need to replace those dirty plants with clean renewables. Get rid of that expensive dangerous energy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 9, 2018)

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> ...


Oh my, another dumb fuck chimes in. Notice the word global? Do you think that the US subsidizes all the renewable energy around the world? The biggest investor in renewables is China. But as the price of renewables has come down, more and more nations are investing in clean energy that costs very little after the initial investment.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 9, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


More stinky stuff from Silly Billy's ass. Post a link to this information. LOL


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...




....at the cost of electricity through the roof?


Fuck you, why do you hate poor people?

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...




Once again governments are mandating it across the world propaganda tool..


Who the fuck do you needle dicks think you're fooling?



.


----------



## Confounding (Aug 9, 2018)

bear513 said:


> needle dicks



Excuse me? My dick is _much_ larger than a needle.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 9, 2018)

Confounding said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > needle dicks
> ...



That's not what she says ..



Getting real sick of people calling a cheap energy source / or product expensive because the libtards taxed it and regulated it to death in the first place.



See it's expensive, well no shit Sherlock when you put a 90% tax on it.


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Why would you replace useful emission-free energy with a bunch of rooftop installations that provide energy 20% of the time?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 9, 2018)

abu afak said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Germans found out the hard way:
> ...




And that refutes my post how propaganda tool?


True to his word, a liberal can never  .




R

E

F

U

T

E

The message only attacks the messenger..


.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 9, 2018)

*Cheap Renewables Keep Pushing Fossil Fuels Further Away From ...*
https://www.forbes.com/.../energyinnovation/.../cheap-renewables-keep-pushing-fossil...
Jan 23, 2018 - As renewable energy costs continue their relentless Decline, fossil fuels fall further ... 
Levelized Cost of Electricity Plummets for Wind and Solar.

*Energy costs: Renewables close in on fossil fuels, challenging on price*
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/energy/.../energy-costs...price/485210002/
Apr 4, 2018 - 
Wind and Solar have become so Cheap on a levelized cost of ... 
`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


20% of the time at 20% of rated capability...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 10, 2018)

Gee Bear, you certainly are a stupid ass. Solar is a friend of poor people.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 10, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Liar. Stupid liar, at that. This is just one of many projects.


----------



## AZGAL (Aug 10, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Go FIND me a reliable wind farm that is an "ALTERNATIVE" to anything..


 Hey there- Then why are there so many wind turbines in Texas, enough to make a person dizzy?

*The five states with the most wind capacity installed at the start of 2017 were:*

Texas (20,321 MW)
Iowa (6,917 MW)
Oklahoma (6,645 MW)
California (5,662 MW)
Kansas (4,451 MW)


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Go FIND me a reliable wind farm that is an "ALTERNATIVE" to anything..
> ...



Because folks can currently make money from subsidies. Not from producing power. The grid operators are currently required to PREFER it and put it on line even tho it's no where NEAR a reliable generation source and taxes their ability to keep the grid stable when there's too much of it. 

The markets will sort this out when the "fad" dies down. I'm not anti-wind. It should be used in a lot of OFF grid applications.


----------



## AZGAL (Aug 10, 2018)

Wind power is good for clean air, not so good for birds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> Wind power is good for clean air, not so good for birds.



Or for a modern economy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 11, 2018)

Bullshit, Toddster. Wind is being used in increasing amount around the globe. As is solar. And the grid scale battery technology is taking off with many players now. As Tesla demonstrated in Australia, wind and grid scale batteries are made for each other. And Tesla is working with the government of South Australia to create a mega watt virtual power station that will benefit both the businesses and the homeowners. Coal is out, and nuclear is far too expensive. Neither are needed, and will go away in a generation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2018)

One of many new projects around the world.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2018)

Mexico may sell us electricity at a far lower rate than we generate electricity at.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 4, 2018)

westwall said:


> Really?  The maldives seem to disagree with you.  Seems that if the ocean levels were rising as was the claim, the claim that the maldives were among the most endangered of all the nations, then investing BILLIONS of more dollars would be pretty stupid.
> 
> *Maldives eyes more mega projects in 2018, proposes MVR7 bln*
> *According to the State Budget 2018 submitted to the parliament by finance minister Ahmed Munawar on Wednesday, the MVR 7 billion budget for these projects comprise of MVR 3.7 billion from the public sector investment programme (PSIP), MVR 2.8 billion from loans, and MVR 4.3 billion from free aid and trust funds.*
> ...



How does the ******* "Maldives compare to the rest of the planet's plans?




abu afak said:


> *Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels*
> *In 2016, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—compared with $143 billion on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel-oil power plants,*
> By Russell Gold - Wall Street Journal
> June 11, 2018
> ...



`


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 4, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  The maldives seem to disagree with you.  Seems that if the ocean levels were rising as was the claim, the claim that the maldives were among the most endangered of all the nations, then investing BILLIONS of more dollars would be pretty stupid.
> ...




So in your world they are building a billion dollar underwater airport?


.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 8, 2018)

bear513 said:


> So in your world they are building a billion dollar underwater airport?
> 
> .


So in your world of illogic you can plug in the tiny anecdote of the Maldives for the WORLD
(and we do not know if, as part of that project, they raised the runways several feet or not.)

And of course this thread is about Power generation, Not airports.
Are the tiny Maldives all you Snowflakes have to cling to?.

`


----------



## polarbear (Oct 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > So in your world they are building a billion dollar underwater airport?
> ...


_So in your world of illogic you can plug in the tiny anecdote of the Maldives for the *WORLD*
(and we do not know if, as part of that project, they raised the runways several feet or not_.)
Did you have a stroke when Kavanaugh was confirmed or has your brain always been defective ?
The Maldives are on average only ~ 5 feet above sea level which makes it the *WORLD`s* lowest elevation country.
What makes you believe that "we" don`t know if they raised that new runway by several feet?
Holy shit here we have a "logical liberal" who would raise a runway by several feet and have a drop of several feet on each side of a runway just wide enough for an A380, increasing the risk factor to a level that ICAO would never certify. And it did not even dawn on this idiot that all the taxi-ways and aprons would have had to be raised by several feet also.




And where would you get all the soil to raise the* entire airport *by several feet ? That would have had to involve a massive (and massively expensive) dredging operation of which there was no mention in any of the announcements about that project.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Oct 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


*That works out well for the Germany who make the wind towers, and China who makes the solar panels.   Sure good progressive thinking.*


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > So in your world they are building a billion dollar underwater airport?
> ...








Sooooo, according to the inner workings of your tiny little brain, the maldives are somehow exempt from the "GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE" you all have been bleating about?  Is that correct?  Care to explain to us how that could even begin to work?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 8, 2018)

westwall said:


> Sooooo, according to the inner workings of your tiny little brain, the maldives are somehow exempt from the "GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE" you all have been bleating about?  Is that correct?  Care to explain to us how that could even begin to work?


You seem obsessed with the Maldives alone.
I post Miami issues/prep, you post the Maldives!
I Post Global investment in Wind and Solar.. you post the Maldives! (as rebuttal no less)

1. You are again OFF topic
2. You are again Illogical/Stupid.
3. Sea Level rise is not even across the globe.

Here was my last AGAIN AND UNANSWERED:

So in your world of illogic you can plug in the tiny anecdote of the Maldives for the WORLD.
*(and we do not know if, as part of that project, they raised the runways several feet or not.)

And of course this thread is about Power generation, Not airports.
Are the tiny Maldives all you Snowflakes have to cling to?.*​
You dumb ****.
`


----------



## abu afak (Oct 9, 2018)

*One of oldest US coal companies files for bankrupt**cy
The Canadian Press - October 9, 2018
One of oldest US coal companies files for bankruptcy*

HELENA, Mont. — One of the oldest coal companies in the U.S. filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday to deal with more than $1.4 billion in debt amid declining demand for the fuel.

Englewood, Colorado-based Westmoreland Coal Co. filed for voluntary Chapter 11 protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston as part of a restructuring agreement with an unnamed group of lenders.

Westmoreland, which operates mines across the U.S. and Canada, is the fourth major coal company to file for bankruptcy in the past three years, joining Peabody Energy Corp., Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources.

Westmoreland officials said in a statement that operations won't be interrupted and there are no expected staff reductions.

"After months of thoughtful and productive conversations with our creditors, we have developed a plan that allows Westmoreland to operate as usual while positioning Westmoreland for long-term success," interim CEO Michael Hutchinson said in the statement.

Coal companies have struggled as demand drops due to a glut of cheap natural gas, the rise of renewable energy sources and plans by some states to reduce or eliminate coal from their energy portfolios.

There are no new coal plants being built in the U.S., and two major coal consumers, China and India, have cancelled projects as they seek to reduce air pollution.

Westmoreland officials warned in August that declining industry conditions and significant debt "give rise to substantial doubt about our ability to pay our obligations as they come due," according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
[.....]​


----------



## polarbear (Oct 9, 2018)

abu afak said:


> *One of oldest US coal companies files for bankrupt**cy
> The Canadian Press - October 9, 2018
> One of oldest US coal companies files for bankruptcy*
> 
> ...



Oldcrock`s  sock puppet says:
_"There are no new coal plants being built in the U.S., and two major coal consumers, *China and India, have cancelled projects as they seek to reduce air pollution*_*."*
*
The Institute for Energy Research says:*
Is Coal Dead in China?
Coal is still supplying 62 percent of China’s energy needs, according to 2016 data in BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, compared to 15 percent for the United States.
*Not only is China building efficient coal plants in its own country, but Chinese companies are helping to build or finance hundreds of coal-fired power plants around the world.* One such project is Kenya’s first 1050-megawatt coal-fired plant costing $2 billion located on some 975 acres.
*China is building and/or financing over 200 coal-fired power plants in 31 countries–Mongolia to Zimbabwe, *including countries like Kenya that had no previous coal plants. (See map below.) The coal plant in Lamu, Kenya will be the first of its kind in East Africa and will power an adjacent 32 berth deep-water port that is part of a plan to transform Kenya into an industrializing, middle-income country by 2030. It is financed with Chinese, South African, and Kenyan capital and built by the state-owned Power Construction Corporation of China. Power China has also constructed coal plants in Indonesia and Pakistan and is the 12th-largest developer of coal plants in the world.
*Excluding projects in South Africa, over 100 coal-generating units are in various stages of planning or development in 11 African countries, and China is financing about half of them. The combined capacity of the units is 42.5 gigawatts—over eight times the region’s existing coal capacity.* While not all are being financed by China, almost all are financed by foreign investment.
Pakistan is committed to building as many as 12 new coal-fired power plants over the next 15 years as part of a large infrastructure investment project that China and its partners are funding. About $33 billion will be spent on 19 energy projects that include coal-fired power plants, transmission lines, and other infrastructure as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The majority of the new generating capacity (roughly 75 percent) will come from the new coal plants.
*Chinese Companies Are Involved in More Than 200 Coal Projects in 31 Countries*
While China has canceled some coal-fired capacity due to lack of demand growth, *China still plans to increase its coal-fired power plants to almost 1,100 gigawatts, which is over three times the coal-fired capacity of the United States.
China still is using coal for over 60 percent of its energy requirements despite its pledge to the Paris Accord.*


----------



## westwall (Oct 9, 2018)

polarbear said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *One of oldest US coal companies files for bankrupt**cy
> ...








Yes indeed, olfrauds sock puppets are renowned for their inability to find factual data.  It's a problem.  Your reports are interesting, so too is how Germany is abandoning renewables.  I guess they finally got tired of their people freezing...


*Germany still constructing new coal power stations*
Several countries in Europe, among them Germany, have recently built or are planning to build new coal power stations. Some examples of such plants are presented here.

*Hard coal power plant, Datteln*
Completion of the E.ON (now Uniper) coal power station at Datteln has been delayed repeatedly since 2007 by court injunctions due to non-compliance with zoning and environmental regulations. The construction site was determined by Friends of the Earth (BUND) to lie five kilometres distant from the original application location.

Germany still constructing new coal power stations | Airclim


----------



## abu afak (Oct 9, 2018)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


That's FUNNY
And 11 Year DELAYED Plant finally get's completed and you try and make it POLICY.

Coal is on the way out in Germany
You either selecta-googled/cherry picked, or are as stupid as ever!

*German Coal Phase-Out may prompt power price hikes for non-ferrous ...*
S&P Global Platts-Sep 18, 2018
London — The base metals industry in Germany needs affordable, secure supplies of electricity following any phase-out of coal-fired power ...


*German Coal Exit power price gains seen outweighed by RES growth ...*
S&P Global Platts-Oct 3, 2018
Debate about coal plant closures has dominated German energy policy for years with the coalition government avoiding a decision earlier this ...

London — *The planned expansion of renewables to 65% of the German power mix by 2030* would more than offset rising prices from *the planned phase-out of coal *and allow the country to reach its 2030 climate target in the energy sector, think-tank Agora Energiewende said in a report.

The report based its assumptions on government targets set by the coalition agreement and was presented to the so-called 'coal commission'.

The study, modeled by Oxford-based energy research firm Aurora, concluded that [b\closing coal capacity to a level that would meet the 2030 climate targets[/b] would lift the wholesale power price to Eur61/MWh ($70.5/MWh), Eur4/MWh higher than under a "no additional measures" scenario......​
`


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...










Sure thing sock boi!

*Germany’s Shift to Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge Investments*
*Germany’s Shift to Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge Investments*


*End of the promotion-Old windmills will soon have to go offline
Date:
31.10.2017 06:24 clock
Wind power is the most important component of the energy transition - but the phasing out of the production threatens countless wind turbines. In three years, a large part of the network could go.

Ende der Förderung: Alte Windräder müssen bald vom Netz*


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 10, 2018)

...because renewables are investments; fossil fuels are merely expenditures.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 10, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


_Coal is on the way out in Germany
You either selecta-googled/cherry picked, or are as stupid as ever_!
Well it would indeed be stupid if a German would believe what some internet sock puppet,  who has no idea what`s going on in Germany has to say...other than musing how self-conceit and  stupidity go hand in hand.
"Coal is on the way out in Germany" says Abufreak the "expert" in German politics after he frantically googled for an article to get him out of the hole he dug for himself so far in his thread...and is too stupid to realize that when you are in a hole the first thing you do is quit digging. But you did not and now your hole got even deeper:
Kritik von allen Seiten an erstem Vorschlag aus Kohlekommission | MDR.DE
*Kritik von allen Seiten an erstem Vorschlag aus Kohlekommission *
Aus der Kohlekomission gibt es einen ersten Vorschlag zum Kohleausstieg. 2038 sollen danach die letzten Kraftwerke abgeschaltet werden. Doch was als Kompromiss gedacht ist, stößt auch in der Kommission auf Widerstand.An einem Vorschlag aus der Kohlekommission, bis 2038 das letzte Kohlekraftwerk abzuschalten, gibt es gleich von mehreren Seiten Kritik.
*Komissions-Mitglied kennt keine Einigung*
Kritik am bekannt gewordenen Vorschlag von Pofalla kommt aber auch aus der Kommission selbst. Greenpeace-Geschäftsführer Martin Kaiser sagte, von einer Einigung in der Kommission könne keine Rede sein. Die Verhandlungen über das Tempo des Kohleausstiegs hätten noch nicht einmal begonnen.

*The "coal commission" which is supposed to negotiate how Germany could phase out coal by 2038 is already under heavy criticism from all sides.*
(which is bad news for a minority government that has to rely on a coalition with the rest of the political parties who can`t wait to shoot it down)
So it`s no wonder that the "coal commission" negotiations how and when to phase out coal have not even started . But now it seems it`s already dead:
Kritik von allen Seiten an erstem Vorschlag aus Kohlekommission | MDR.DE
Damit war das angebliche Kohleausstiegsdatum 2035 bis 38 zumindest offiziell wieder vom Tisch,
*Translation: And with that the date 2035 to 2038 for the phasing out of coal was officially off the table.*

*Of course it would be because every political party in Germany knows that they will be decimated in the next election if they would phase out coal which would increase the electrical bill for Germans by 29 billion Euros.*
source:
Kohleausstieg: Strompreise könnten um bis zu 20 Prozent steigen

So the usual politically expedient move was to establish a commission as a window dressing that fakes the intention to comply with the Paris Climate accord without giving that commission any authority to do anything but advise....which is the reason why the German Green Party is not even participating.

*Hahaha at the least there are some dummies like you who fell for that ploy hook line and sinker. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> ...because renewables are investments; fossil fuels are merely expenditures.



Reliable, consistent, cheaper expenditures.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> ...because renewables are investments; fossil fuels are merely expenditures.








Bad investments for the most part.  Other than hydroelectric which is awesome, solar and wind never, ever come close to the hype of how much energy they will produce.  Here in Reno they figured out that the four wind turbines that the city installed for just shy of a million dollars would NEVER pay for themselves.  So, they took them down because the maintenance costs were idiotic to continue paying when they didn't produce.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2018)

westwall said:


> Sure thing sock boi!
> 
> *Germany’s Shift to Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge Investments*
> *Germany’s Shift to Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge Investments*
> ...


Thanks for Proving MY point.
Did you catch the word STALLS in what is STILL a long Term Shift from Coal?
nope
`


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2018)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sure thing sock boi!
> ...









"Stalls" as in even with massive public expenditures the renewables suck so bad they can't make it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > ...because renewables are investments; fossil fuels are merely expenditures.
> ...


Fucking bullshit.






Levelized Cost of Energy 2017

Renewables are cheaper as measure in kw/hr delivered, and continuing to get cheaper.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2018)

westwall said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > ...because renewables are investments; fossil fuels are merely expenditures.
> ...


Sounds like they did not do a study before siting the mills. East of The Dalles, Oregon, are thousands of mills that are profitably producing electricity. And, in South Australia, the Hornsdale Wind Farm and the 100+ megawatt Tesla battery are saving that utility tens of millions per year. Wind and solar are the future, old farts like you are the past. Best to bury the failed past.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Is Ivanpah profitable yet?


----------



## polarbear (Oct 11, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


_Renewables are cheaper as measure in kw/hr delivered, and continuing to get cheaper._
Try and tell Germans that an increase of 30 billion Euros on their electric bill is "cheaper" !
....and that`s on top of the massive increase per kwh they already had.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 11, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Germans pay 3 times what we pay for electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Meh......details.


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 12, 2018)

The expense for present energy sources is yet to be known. Do we count the military costs of securing access and delivery of oil? Do we count the eventual costs of nuclear (how can we; this is a huge unknown)? There are costs in money, costs in environment, costs in lives. 
We have to honestly evaluate all these in order to judge rightly.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 12, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> The expense for present energy sources is yet to be known. Do we count the military costs of securing access and delivery of oil? Do we count the eventual costs of nuclear (how can we; this is a huge unknown)? There are costs in money, costs in environment, costs in lives.
> We have to honestly evaluate all these in order to judge rightly.


No wonder it takes decades just to build a road when democrats are in charge. 
_The expense for present energy sources is yet to be known. Do we count the military costs of securing access and delivery of oil?_
Your cost accounting methods would have made the funniest "The  Simpsons" episode. Seymour Skinner has to decide if groundskeeper Willie should use a gas or an electric lawn mower and tells Superintendent Chalmers that he has to go  on a fact finding mission to the middle east  before he can render a decision.


----------



## Crick (Oct 13, 2018)

That it costs money to replace existing power infrastructure with completely different technology should surprise no one.  That does not alter the fact that we must.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 13, 2018)

Crick said:


> That it costs money to replace existing power infrastructure with completely different technology should surprise no one.  That does not alter the fact that we must.


_That does not alter the fact that we must_
It`s not a fact that "we must" just because a political agenda claims it is a "we must".
The bogus temperature anomaly sure as hell did not make a fact out of what you say is a "we must" .
Not even after Dems  changed their tactics to harassment and violence if we don`t do what they say "we must".
The fact is that Democrats have morphed into an American version of early Chinese communism using radical youths the same way Mao Zedong used them. The doctrine is the same the only difference is that the little  red book  printed version is now the cellphone & Twitter.mob siren which signals when,where and who to attack.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 13, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> The expense for present energy sources is yet to be known. Do we count the military costs of securing access and delivery of oil? Do we count the eventual costs of nuclear (how can we; this is a huge unknown)? There are costs in money, costs in environment, costs in lives.
> We have to honestly evaluate all these in order to judge rightly.



The attempt to understand the expense of energy sources goes under the heading EROEI, or Energy Returned on Energy Investment. This measure by different researchers varies widely depending on what expenses are considered, such as transportation to the end user, amortization of factories, but it hardly ever includes "societal" costs (as you mentioned) such as environmental. See wikipedia for details.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > The expense for present energy sources is yet to be known. Do we count the military costs of securing access and delivery of oil? Do we count the eventual costs of nuclear (how can we; this is a huge unknown)? There are costs in money, costs in environment, costs in lives.
> ...


_ See wikipedia for details._
Okay I did backtrack this silly graph to your source which has a   "C" class ranking:
Talk:Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of *WikiProject Energy*, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C  This article has been rated as *C-Class* on the project's quality scale.
And C class means:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/Assessment - Wikipedia
Useful to a casual reader, *but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.*
It`s been written by an author who prefers to hide his identity behind* User:Σ*
And here is his home page:
User:Σ - Wikipedia





 This user is a _*Socialist*_.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2018)

polarbear said:


> _See wikipedia for details._
> Okay I did backtrack this silly graph to your source which has a "C" class ranking:
> Talk:Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia
> This article is within the scope of *WikiProject Energy*, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
> ...



That's right. As I said, the measure of EROEI depends on the thoroughness of the researcher. The quality of the research can vary depending on the availability of data which isn't always there, but it does give an idea of the order of magnitude of the various technologies. Most graphs provide error bars which are important. The wiki graph does not, and is just an example of how the comparisons can be displayed. 

A better way to get an idea of the best technologies is to Google "EROEI graphs" and click "images". That will give a wider overview the trends.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > _See wikipedia for details._
> ...


The entire concept is another laughable example demonstrating the stupidity of the make America timid again mob.
Your Googling won`t turn up any of these "studies" that qualify better than a "C" even when they have been peer reviewed by the kind of alarmist nuts who make up the bulk of Wikipedia authors.
This hair-brained concept has a windmill at an EROI of 1 even though it would take about 35 000 to deliver what the 100 times less ("EROI") efficient Grand Coulee dam has been delivering for over 70 years.
Windmills deliver on average only about 20% of their name plate ratings to begin with , if the wind is within the narrow specs and are falling apart after 20 years. Good thing dope smoking Democrats like Choom-gang Obama were  not "hip" when the US decided to green light mega projects like Grand Coulee else most of Arizona, Nevada and California would be in the dark and without water today.
That idiotic EROI would rate  a donkey wheel better than anything else because you could make Mortadella out of decommissioned donkeys instead of wondering what to do with the fiberglass& plasic garbage 20 years from now when  the service life time of a huge amount of windmills expires.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2018)

polarbear said:


> The entire concept is another laughable example demonstrating the stupidity of the make America timid again mob.
> Your Googling won`t turn up any of these "studies" that qualify better than a "C" even when they have been peer reviewed by the kind of alarmist nuts who make up the bulk of Wikipedia authors.
> This hair-brained concept has a windmill at an EROI of 1 even though it would take about 35 000 to deliver what the 100 times less ("EROI") efficient Grand Coulee dam has been delivering for over 70 years.
> Windmills deliver on average only about 20% of their name plate ratings to begin with , if the wind is within the narrow specs and are falling apart after 20 years. Good thing dope smoking Democrats like Choom-gang Obama were not "hip" when the US decided to green light mega projects like Grand Coulee else most of Arizona, Nevada and California would be in the dark and without water today.
> That idiotic EROI would rate a donkey wheel better than anything else because you could make Mortadella out of decommissioned donkeys instead of wondering what to do with the fiberglass& plasic garbage 20 years from now when the service life time of a huge amount of windmills expires.



Chill out. That's your opinion. Your anger does not make your argument any stronger. 

I assume the 22% uptime has already been factored into the EROI, but I have no idea. The same goes for photovoltaics. 

I also assume that those investing big bucks into wind and solar energy already know all about the uptime efficiencies.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The entire concept is another laughable example demonstrating the stupidity of the make America timid again mob.
> ...


In addition to being stupid you are also delusional to the extreme if you convinced yourself that people who laugh at you are angry instead of realizing you have become their laughing stock.
"_I also assume that those investing big bucks into wind and solar energy already know all about the uptime efficiencies_."
Hahaha what the heck is an "uptime efficiency" ? Let me guess. Wuwei can`t quite get it what a  X% efficiency is unless it has been explained redundantly. And "those investing big bucks" , the consumers aren`t doing it unless somebody either holds a gun to their head or gets subsidized...depending which country they are in.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2018)

I see you are still angry and churlish. Sorry, I meant to say "uptime and efficiencies". Uptime is the amount of time it is generating power. Efficiency is the percentage of wind energy converted to usable electrical energy.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I see you are still angry and churlish. Sorry, I meant to say "uptime and efficiencies". Uptime is the amount of time it is generating power. Efficiency is the percentage of wind energy converted to usable electrical energy.


So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?
Wake up and smell the coffee instead of inhaling whacky-tobaccy
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
"_— the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — * is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years*_*."*
_"The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years."_
And I bet none of the "EROI" experts who are trying to sell us on windmills factor in the conventional power plants which are needed to back up each wind farm because a wind turbine is not able to deliver power on demand as a power grid has to.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2018)

polarbear said:


> So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?
> Wake up and smell the coffee instead of inhaling whacky-tobaccy
> Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
> "_— the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — * is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years*_*."*
> ...



I don't know what your point is. Any EROI chart that I have seen shows that hydroelectric is more cost effective than any other source. That should be obvious. It shows wind power is less, which is also obvious. 

The article you cited says at the end,
_“Better turbines are being developed all the time, so it’s absurd to focus purely on the past as this report does, and pretend that that’s the way things are going to be in the future.”_​
If you want to know details on how EROI is computed read the background assumptions in each chart. That is better than "betting" what EROI experts are assuming. 

EROI charts are not all compiled by wind aficionados trying to sell something. I am certainly not trying to sell it either. I simply gave there4eyeM a heads-up on how some researchers are trying to answer his question in post #221 above.

.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?
> ...


The only way to make a windmill look 100 times more "EROI" than a Hydro electric power plant is is by inventing a rating system that works like the one doggie show judges use where a cute, but otherwise useless little Chiwawa can score better than a K9 German Shepard that tracked down and neutralized every scumbag he was supposed to. Expressing the doggie show EROI scores in numbers and plotting them on a graph completes the illusion that "EROI" is based on math instead of what the doggie show judge fancied.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 15, 2018)

The concept of EROI is used for comparing different energy sources. You are turning it into a fight between hydro and wind. That is not the purpose of EROI and it's not my purpose. It's your purpose. Just what is your point? Hydro is better than wind? Of course it is! It's not a fight. Hydro wins every time. I have no idea why you are ranting about EROI because it proves your point, a point that everyone knows. It seems you want to argue, but there is nothing to argue about.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The concept of EROI is used for comparing different energy sources. You are turning it into a fight between hydro and wind. That is not the purpose of EROI and it's not my purpose. It's your purpose. Just what is your point? Hydro is better than wind? Of course it is! It's not a fight. Hydro wins every time. I have no idea why you are ranting about EROI because it proves your point, a point that everyone knows. It seems you want to argue, but there is nothing to argue about.


Hahaha you are asking me what is my point after you finally realized that you tried to make a point with a pointless concept. Of course there is nothing to argue about and never was because it`s a clear-cut&dry case deciding which technology is superior.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




*The only way to make a windmill look 100 times more "EROI" than a Hydro electric power plant is is by inventing a rating system...….*






Are you misreading the chart?
Hydro returns most....coal second most.
Wind isn't even close.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


No I am not misreading it. They define It as a ratio of "invested energy" over "returned energy".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Returned over invested.
Hydro is 100 times returned.
Coal returns 80 times.
Wind....only about 20.
Hydro's return kicks wind's ass.....right there in the chart.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 15, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Hahaha you are asking me what is my point after you finally realized that you tried to make a point with a pointless concept. Of course there is nothing to argue about and never was because it`s a clear-cut&dry case deciding which technology is superior.


Right. I told you that right from the start. As Todd said, it's right there in the chart I posted at square one. Hydro is superior. The same goes for solar. So you never did have any point. 

Do you think we should build more dams for hydro? Where? What is your favorite energy resource that we should be sinking money into in the future?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

*`*
*Corporations Are Investing in Wind and Solar Energy Now More Than Ever*
By RENAE REINTS - Fortune Magazine
January 30, 2019
Corporate investment in renewable energy is Swelling as companies move to please knowledgeable consumers and take advantage of vanishing tax breaks.
Corporations Are Investing in Wind and Solar Energy Now More Than Ever


An array of corporations—including Budweiser, Gap Inc., and MGM Resort International—have invested in wind and solar energy recently, pushing spending above $16 billion last year, *a 13% growth from the year prior, The Wall Street Journal reports. This growth is expected to double in 2019.*

With high-profile reports warning of the dangers of climate change should humans not adapt, more people are becoming aware of how their actions affect the globe. A December poll showed 58% of U.S. voters believe scientists are right, and climate change is indeed man-made.

The consumers are asking for change: the _WSJ_ reports more hotel clients in Las Vegas are demanding venues that limit greenhouse gas emissions, food waste, and other problematic expenditures.
The change led MGM to look for a green investment, eventually finding a solar farm that could power nearly all of the company’s 13 local casinos for less than $30 a megawatt hour—an offer $20 to $140 less than that of most new fossil-fuel facilities in developed nations.

“It is good business to be green,” Cindy Ortega, MGM Resort International’s chief sustainability officer, told the _WSJ_. “That’s a real shift in thinking.”
[......]​`


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2019)

westwall said:


> Yes indeed, olfrauds sock puppets are renowned for their inability to find factual data.  It's a problem.  Your reports are interesting, so too is how Germany is abandoning renewables.  I guess they finally got tired of their people freezing...



Abu is rock's sock?  Guess it makes sense...they are about the only ones who go about posting "funny" on posts without making comments...and there are a couple of grammatical quirks that they share.  Guess abu is socks release valve...gives him a chance to let the squirrels running around in that rotted liberal brain of his to get out from some air...abu is at least an order of magnitude crazier than rocks...Guess he needs an outlet like that....must be tough to keep that sort of crazy under anything like control...


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)




----------



## abu afak (Aug 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes indeed, olfrauds sock puppets are renowned for their inability to find factual data.  It's a problem.  Your reports are interesting, so too is how Germany is abandoning renewables.  I guess they finally got tired of their people freezing...
> ...


Many posts don't rate a reply.
Most of Yours, ALL of Billy Bobb's, ALL of Skookerassbil's, ALL of Wearherman's, ALL of Crusader Franks, etc, etc.

But I put up as much meat per post as anyone.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 31, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...
> ...


Virtually no one dies from pollution in this country.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 21, 2019)

*Plans for 'world's largest' wind farm off Yorkshire coast*
20 September 2019 - BBC
Plans for 'world's largest' wind farm

Plans have been announced to build three new giant wind farms off the Yorkshire coast.

The developers behind the Dogger Bank project claim it would be the world's biggest and *produce enough electricity to power 4.5 million UK homes.*

Work is expected to start in January and the first power could be produced in 2023.

Industry body RenewableUK said the investment could "support thousands of new jobs".
[......]

`​


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *Plans for 'world's largest' wind farm off Yorkshire coast*
> 20 September 2019 - BBC
> Plans for 'world's largest' wind farm
> 
> ...


We could support millions of new jobs by having people dig holes and fill them up again.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 12, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *Plans for 'world's largest' wind farm off Yorkshire coast*
> ...


But those whole will not produce for 20 years like wind nd solar.
Digging holes for fracking lasts about 1 year.
`


----------



## jc456 (Aug 12, 2020)

abu afak said:


> But those whole will not produce for 20 years like wind nd solar.
> Digging holes for fracking lasts about 1 year.


wind nd solar aren't making any difference. They aren't dependable.  no 24 hour service.  so it's a bandaid.  you all can post that for forever, but Germany abandoned that path. Natural gas is great for the grid, it's dependable. 

Digging holes definitely would be as product.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 12, 2020)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOL

Facts are things you ignore... Because there is no answer that is relevant when you post up lies and deceit.  THe facts say your green bull shit is just that..  BS


----------



## abu afak (Sep 25, 2020)

You guys didn't listen
Renewables are going even stronger now.
Not only is Coal Dying...
Exxon Mobil is tanking.

`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> You guys didn't listen
> Renewables are going even stronger now.
> Not only is Coal Dying...
> Exxon Mobil is tanking.
> ...


Where? Link


----------



## elektra (Sep 26, 2020)

*Spending more to create less electricity is a good thing?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2020)

elektra said:


> *Spending more to create less electricity is a good thing?*



It's been working for California.
It's nothing like rolling blackouts in a 3rd world country.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 26, 2020)

jc456 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > You guys didn't listen
> ...


*Here’s what Exxon’s removal from the Dow says about the energy sector*
Published: Aug. 25, 2020 
By *Claudia Assis*
*‘Sign of the times’ as energy heavyweight replaced by Salesforce*









						Here’s what Exxon’s removal from the Dow says about the energy sector
					

The swap of Exxon for Salesforce on the Dow Jones Industrial Average may say more about the energy sector than about the company itself.




					www.marketwatch.com
				




`


----------



## abu afak (Sep 26, 2020)

jc456 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > You guys didn't listen
> ...


2.






`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



How many "green" energy stocks in the Dow?


----------



## abu afak (Sep 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many "green" energy stocks in the Dow?


non sequitur.
(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

MarketWatch.com
"... Peter McNally, global lead for industrials, materials and energy at research firm Third Bridge, says aggressive investment by utilities in renewable energy has lowered the cost of clean tech and showed it was viable at scale. Just as utilities invested in natural gas 20 years ago at the expense of coal, they are now doing the same with alternative energy.

“Clean-tech businesses are starting to stand on their own, and I think they got a big boost from the utilities,” he says.

Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, shows as of 2019, 18% of the U.S.’s electricity generation came from alternative energy, versus 10% in 2009...."
- - - 
Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.
It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.
and the current crisis will boost clean energy yet more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How many "green" energy stocks in the Dow?
> ...



*(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.) *

Exxon Mobil has a market cap of over $140 billion.
How many "green" energy stocks are that large?

*Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.*

That is awesome!!!

*It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.*

Ummm....at the end of 2019, their coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas units had nearly three 
times the capacity as their wind and solar did. 
And the non-renewables generated about 65% of total electricity.





__





						NextEra Energy, Inc. | By the Numbers
					






					www.nexteraenergy.com
				




Is that your idea of "mostly"?


----------



## elektra (Sep 26, 2020)

renewables are only built burning fossil fuel and using coal. Run out of either and renewables clean green dies


----------



## abu afak (Sep 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Your welcome.

neither you nor 99% of the country knows that, and knows how far Exxon/Oil has fallen.

Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur. 
`


----------



## whitehall (Sep 26, 2020)

What does "outshining" mean? Is it a poor attempt at a pun? I guess "outshining" in this context means outspending. Since fossil energy is already in place it's a no brainer that more money would be spent trying to get new wind and sun energy sources on line when they produce barely 18% of energy on a good day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



*Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur.*

Yeah, refuting your ignorant claim with the real numbers.....non sequitur. Hilarious!!!

*It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.*

And the non-renewables generated about 65% of total electricity.

NextEra Energy, Inc. | By the Numbers

Is that your idea of "mostly"? Moron.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


One ONE Point, by about 15% is ALL you have.
The rest of this thread..
and Everything from overall pwer Generation Spending to sinking Exxon.
has becoming TRUER Every day.
Only exacerbated by COVID.

Not to mention the OTHER TWO Threads I bumped up.
You couldn't do SHIT.

You suck and you LOSE BIG OVERALL.

You are and always were a cheap 2c little heel-nipping Shit who can't do anything.
The opening non sequitur 100% Typical.

`

`
`

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



*One ONE Point, by about 15% is ALL you have. *

So, by most you meant 50%? LOL!

Any other "green" companies with Exxon's market cap?


----------



## abu afak (Sep 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Any other "green" companies with Exxon's market cap?


Again, that's irrelevant to the much younger Growing Renewable industry (and power gen share) and the Sinking Oil industry which it hasn't passed yet of course.

*You're so Stupid and/or more likely DISHONEST with this false challenges.
I don't have to show a larger cap SINGLE Renewable co, and indeed renewables are just parts of many large companies. *

Your not nearly smart enough to make me bite on that FALLACIOUS BS As it does not dent my point

Now it's back to Mensa for me, and back to the 24-pack for you junior.

If/WHEN you 'reply' it's just Bump meat for me.
Probably when this drifts further down I'll just USE you again to Bump this headline up.
*You're my Bitch. 
See you in a few days or week.
Now pull your pants back up Boy, I'm done with you for now.*
`
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Any other "green" companies with Exxon's market cap?
> ...



*Again, that's irrelevant to the much younger Growing Renewable industry  *

Yeah, electricity generation.....young.

*I don't have to show a larger cap SINGLE Renewable co, and indeed renewables are just parts of many large companies. *

Yeah, 35%. LOL!

*Now it's back to Mensa for me*

Aww....aren't you cute?

*If/WHEN you 'reply' it's just Bump meat for me**.*

I love bumping your idiocy.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 28, 2020)

elektra said:


> renewables are only built burning fossil fuel and using coal. Run out of either and renewables clean green dies


Only top the extent Fossil Fuels dereasing shower of power generation contribute to the overall grip.
And of course, "building," is mainly an upfront NON-recurring cost. Unlike Fossil Fuel.

`


----------



## elektra (Sep 29, 2020)

abu afak said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > renewables are only built burning fossil fuel and using coal. Run out of either and renewables clean green dies
> ...


sorry, you fail, I stated you must increase the use of coal and oil to build wind mills and solar panels. You replied citing costs, two very different things.

If you can not understand my simple comment you certainly can not understand the complicated manufacturing process which increases the use of coal and oil.

you need to focus on what is stated, we understand you memorized talking points you heard from others and that you think tjey are wild cards that wins your argument. They do not. 

Cost, is so extreme it requires billions of dollars of free tax payer money given to the investors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2020)

elektra said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Renewables are so cheap, Germans pay triple what we do for electricity.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 29, 2020)

elektra said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


No they're not different things.
The COST of Renewables AND building them has come down for several reasons.

1. The fact there is a ONE TIME (mostly fossil) cost (at this time) for a Windmill (or Solar Panel) that will operate for 10 or 20 Years producing energy is academic and Irrelevant.
AND
2. Increasingly, the energy spent TO build them will come FROM those very renewables.
IOW, eventually a majority of energy used to build them will come from them too.
3. Building a Fossil Fuel Power Plant instead would use INFINITELY more.. fossil fuel! over it's DIRTY lifetime.

So your 'argument' is beyond idiotic.

`


----------



## abu afak (Oct 8, 2020)

abu afak said:


> - - -
> *...Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.
> It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.
> and the current crisis will boost clean energy yet more.*


 Someone is reading my posts or had the same good idea!
How about that.

*Renewable energy giant surpasses ExxonMobil in value*
Oct 8, 2020.








						Renewable energy giant surpasses ExxonMobil in value
					

The crash in Exxon shares reflects a similar crash in oil




					www.axios.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2020)

abu afak said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > - - -
> ...



*It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.*

Ummm....at the end of 2019, their coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas units had nearly three
times the capacity as their wind and solar did.
And the non-renewables generated about 65% of total electricity.

NextEra Energy, Inc. | By the Numbers

Is that your idea of "mostly"? 

Of course it is, because you're an idiot.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2020)

Another!








						NextEra Now More Valuable Than Exxon as Clean Power Eclipses Oil
					

NextEra Energy Inc., the world’s biggest provider of wind and solar energy, is now more valuable than oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp., once the largest public company on Earth.




					www.bloomberg.com
				




*NextEra Now More Valuable Than Exxon as Clean Power Eclipses Oil*
By Will Wade and Brian Eckhouse
October 7, 2020, 4:06 PM EDT

Exxon shares slumped more than 50% in 2020 as oil demand wanes
‘People believe that renewable energy is a growth story’

*NextEra Energy Inc., the world’s biggest provider of wind and solar energy, is now more valuable than oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp., once the largest public company on Earth.*

NextEra ended Wednesday with market value of $145 billion, topping Exxon’s $142 billion. The oil major’s U.S. rival, Chevron Corp., also surpassed it in value for the first time.">>>"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2020)

abu afak said:


> NextEra ended Wednesday with market value of $145 billion, topping Exxon’s $142 billion. The oil major’s U.S. rival, Chevron Corp., also surpassed it in value for the first time.">>>"



Darn it!!!










Exxon is worth $40 billion more.........


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > NextEra ended Wednesday with market value of $145 billion, topping Exxon’s $142 billion. The oil major’s U.S. rival, Chevron Corp., also surpassed it in value for the first time.">>>"
> ...








That didn't take long


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 16, 2020)

JGalt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> ...


Not where I am living. Not one hundred percent.  The lions share comes from coal or petroleum but is changing over time. Fusion is just around the corner and there is an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy.  Things will change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


*
Fusion is just around the corner  *

That's funny!!

*an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy*

Link?


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 16, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


I will look for it. Can't re8where I saw but I will figure it out. Here is one on Italian fusion projects. 




__





						Cold Fusion From Italy Nearly Commercial Ready
					

An Italian Team has demonstrated and held a press conference on a cold fusion or catalyst reaction that returns 37.5 times the energy than used for operation.




					newenergyandfuel.com


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 16, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


There is also this going on!








						Researchers create a graphene circuit that makes limitless power
					

A team of researchers from the University of Arkansas has successfully developed a circuit that can capture the thermal motion of graphene and convert it into an electrical current. The physicists …




					www-slashgear-com.cdn.ampproject.org


----------



## Correll (Dec 16, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...




Being more expensive, is not being cost effective.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Dec 16, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...




That was almost 10 years ago - commercial ready.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Dec 16, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...




Fusion is an elusive beast.

The concept has been known for a long time but implementation has been difficult.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Dec 16, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...




Not related to power production on a large baseload scale.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...



Thanks for the link.
_
Perhaps the greatest significance is the team has started the patent process and have licensee agreements completed in both the EU and USA.  This seems to be fully real.  Moreover, the expectations of the team are to have commercial designs due out within a year with device production for sale or use in 2 to 3 years. _

10 year old article, still no commercial devices? Weird.

Almost like Rossi is a fraud, eh?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Dec 17, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


A lot of mainstream scientists have been saying for sometime now, that to really heal the Earth, two-thirds of the planet must be returned to nature, so as long as the human population keeps growing, needing Earth's resources and not shrinking, the Earth isn't going to improve.
Add to this, our planet's 3rd and 2nd world nations, rely heavily on fossil fuels for their burgeoning populations who continue to deforest lands for cooking and heat, et cetera, and their nations leaders say they will continue with this until they reach a similar level to the United States.
As for the United States, we pollute far less than other nations and the Paris Accord actually does nothing globally, especially with regards to those 3rd and 2nd world nations.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 17, 2020)

The insistence to needlessly reproduce leads inexorably to needless suffering.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 1, 2022)

Now it's up to 92%.

`


----------



## jc456 (Jan 1, 2022)

So the same old stupid keeps coming


----------



## elektra (Jan 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Now it's up to 92%.
> 
> `


Of course global investment in Solar and Wind is the largest investment in history. It is because green energy as a source of power is pitiful, weak, barely works. 

Global investment in Green Energy is, according to the Democrats, to increase by 100,000%

Green Energy is that expensive, cause it does not work.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So the same old stupid keeps coming


Then try posting something that reflects intelligence and surprise us all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2022)

elektra said:


> Of course global investment in Solar and Wind is the largest investment in history. It is because green energy as a source of power is pitiful, weak, barely works.
> 
> Global investment in Green Energy is, according to the Democrats, to increase by 100,000%
> 
> Green Energy is that expensive, cause it does not work.













						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## elektra (Jan 2, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> View attachment 582512
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep. $100 trillion to start our spending on solar panels and wind mills


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

elektra said:


> Yep. $100 trillion to start our spending on solar panels and wind mills


As opposed 90 Trillion to rebuild Fossil plants?
Alot of the 'cost' will just be normal replacing old Fossil plants which don't have to be fed with Saudi Fuel for 30 years.

`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> As opposed 90 Trillion to rebuild Fossil plants?
> Alot of the 'cost' will just be normal replacing old Fossil plants which don't have to be fed with Saudi Fuel for 30 years.
> 
> `


Why do we have to rebuild fossil fuel plants, and who said the cost will be $90 trillion?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Why do we have to rebuild fossil fuel plants, and who said the cost will be $90 trillion?


Because Fossil Fuel plants, like all plants, eventually need replacement?
Who said Renewables would 'cost' 100 Trillion?
I was just responding to his nonsense pitter patter with a relative number.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Because Fossil Fuel plants, like all plants, eventually need replacement?
> Who said Renewables would 'cost' 100 Trillion?
> I was just responding to his nonsense pitter patter with a relative number.


Yes they do, but that's already been figured into the equation.  The global warming kooks are demanding an additional $90T for their green energy fantasies.

The green energy kooks are the ones who claim their schemes will cost $90 trillion.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Yes they do, but that's already been figured into the equation.  The global warming kooks are demanding an additional $90T for their green energy fantasies.
> 
> The green energy kooks are the ones who claim their schemes will cost $90 trillion.


No it has NOT been figured into the equation.
It's an old floater by anti-greens who just tell you the cost of an already needed new plant.
(I have a thread on this, "Solar is now the cheapest..")
"Solar is now ‘Cheapest Electricity in History’, confirms IEA
It was closed by the RW Bigot (FlaCalTeen) who runs this place.

`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> No it has NOT been figured into the equation.
> It's an old floater by anti-greens who just tell you the cost of an already needed new plant.
> (I have a thread on this, "Solar is now the cheapest..")
> `


If not, then why do they need $90 T?  What is the additional money for?  There is no cost to the taxpayers for a plant to replace an existing one.  Have the taxpayers ever foot the bill for coal fired plants?  The cost for that is included in your power bill.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And so will the cost of the Solar plants.
> Again the 90 Tril was just a what if /parry number to 100 Tril
> These are wild wide estimates
> WTF are you doing putting them in stone for
> ...


What is the $90 trillion for?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> What is the $90 trillion for?


.
Again the 90 Tril was just a what if /parry number to 100 Tril
These are wild wide estimates
WTF are you doing putting them in stone for
Too dumb.
Gameover
so solly.
`


----------



## Flash (Jan 4, 2022)

Solar and wind are terrible technologies.

The only things that makes them a good investment are filthy ass destructive government mandates and subsidies.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> Solar and wind are terrible technologies.
> 
> The only things that makes them a good investment are filthy ass destructive government mandates and subsidies.


Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​ 13 October 2020 

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables.
The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.
[...............]









						Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA
					

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.




					www.carbonbrief.org
				




`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> .
> Again the 90 Tril was just a what if /parry number to 100 Tril
> These are wild wide estimates
> WTF are you doing putting them in stone for
> ...


You are obviously too fucking stupid to understand.  The taxpayers never had to pay for replacement power plants in the past, so why do they need to pay for them now?

Taxpayers are paying for that with increased power bills.  So how is green cheaper than fossil fuels?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You are obviously too fucking stupid to understand.  The taxpayers never had to pay for replacement power plants in the past, so why do they need to pay for them now?


And taxpayers won't be paying for solar either, customers will.
The plants are being built by Private co and investors.
Green stocks/utilities (like Next Era Energy) are building like any other Power Plants.

It's you are are WAY TOO F******** STUPID.

YOU **** MORON. You ************** MORON.

Current traditional Utilities are also building Solar big time

YOU F******* MORON

YOU F******* MORON
`


----------



## Flash (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​13 October 2020
> 
> The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
> 
> ...


Bullshit.  Especially when you consider that Joe Potatohead has artificially run up the cost of fossil fuels with anti energy polices.

I have a friend who is an executive for one of the largest power companies in the US.

They are putting in a lot of the stupid solar farms.  He is a real engineer and knows that it is shitty technology.  I ask him why his company is doing a dumb thing like that.

He said that his company gets a lot of financing from Eurotrash banks.  The Euro banks follow the filthy EU guidelines and require the borrows to invest in failed "green" technology.

Because of that and the stupid government subsidies and the fact they can pass the cost of construction on to the consumers it becomes profitable to put in the worthless crap.

It is a big joke with the power companies.  Institutionalized government stupidity that will fail.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> Bullshit.  Especially when you consider that Joe Potatohead has artificially run up the cost of fossil fuels with anti energy polices.
> 
> I have a friend who is an executive for one of the largest power companies in the US.
> 
> ...


And the Banks would not be financing them to lose money
 empty Ignorant Hostile.
`

*Please note westwall  "Disagree" feedbacks.
He cannot however Voice that disagreement because he is a science and business illiterate.*

`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> Bullshit.  Especially when you consider that Joe Potatohead has artificially run up the cost of fossil fuels with anti energy polices.
> 
> I have a friend who is an executive for one of the largest power companies in the US.
> 
> ...


​Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021 - Renewable Energy World​Renewable energy sources dominated new U.S. electrical generating capacity additions in the first half of 2021.




www.renewableenergyworld.com

`
*Please note westwall  "Disagree" feedbacks.
He cannot however Voice that disagreement because he is a science and business illiterate.*

`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You are obviously too fucking stupid to understand.  The taxpayers never had to pay for replacement power plants in the past, so why do they need to pay for them now?


Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021 - Renewable Energy World​Renewable energy sources dominated new U.S. electrical generating capacity additions in the first half of 2021.




www.renewableenergyworld.com

`
*Please note westwall  "Disagree" feedbacks.
He cannot however Voice that disagreement because he is a science and business illiterate.*

`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021 - Renewable Energy World​Renewable energy sources dominated new U.S. electrical generating capacity additions in the first half of 2021.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So why do we need the $90 trillion?  You are obviously too fucking stupid to get the point.


----------



## elektra (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> As opposed 90 Trillion to rebuild Fossil plants?
> Alot of the 'cost' will just be normal replacing old Fossil plants which don't have to be fed with Saudi Fuel for 30 years.
> 
> `


All our fossil fuel plants don't need to be rebuilt. Most last over 50 years. And that is done with profits.

$100 trillion is my money, and other taxpayers money, and our children's money. Wind turbines and Solar panels are already proven failures. That is why $100 trillion in new taxes is needed

$90 trillion, your next magic trick will be to pull a rabbit out of your ass.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And taxpayers won't be paying for solar either, customers will.
> The plants are being built by Private co and investors.
> Green stocks/utilities (like Next Era Energy) are building like any other Power Plants.
> 
> ...


Consumers are paying with increased utility bills.  Check out the cost of power in California: more than double the cost in the cheapest state.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

elektra said:


> All our fossil fuel plants don't need to be rebuilt. Most last over 50 years. And that is done with profits.
> 
> $100 trillion is my money, and other taxpayers money, and our children's money. Wind turbines and Solar panels are already proven failures. That is why $100 trillion in new taxes is needed
> 
> $90 trillion, your next magic trick will be to pull a rabbit out of your ass.


Wrong on the power plants,
Wrong on "taxpayer".
PRIVATE money financing and investing in these plants, as are traditional utilities building them.
You guys are so G-D Ignorant

Grreen energy is one of the hottest invesstor rea on Wall street , and  customer will be paying just like they do regular electric bills.

****** MORONS

This place is so F(*** stupoid

It's like 80% are 100% ignorant.

Are you guys posting from jail from your Jan 6 Riot sentence?

*Please note westwall  "Disagree" feedbacks.
He cannot however Voice that disagreement because he is a science and business illiterate.*

`
`


----------



## elektra (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Wrong on the pwer plants,
> Wrong on "taxpayer".
> PROVATE money financingf and inbvesting in ntyhese plants, as are traditional utilities building them
> You guys are so G-D Ignorant
> ...


Everyone pays more for electricity now, because of green energy.

Wind and solar cost over a $100 trillion because they are weak. A little trickle, certainly Abu Afk knows all about little trickles


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

elektra said:


> Everyone pays more for electricity now, because of green energy.
> 
> Wind and solar cost over a $100 trillion because they are weak. A little trickle, certainly Abu Afk knows all about little trickles


Wrong
We pay FPL/Florida Power and Light 7% Less this year because Solar in Fl is very efficient.
They don't even have to build another plant saving Millions as customers are using solar and selling it back to them cheaper (and cleaner) than building any new plant.

And traditional electric bills (and gasoline) did go up because FOSSIL FUELS WENT UP, not Solar you dumb ***hole.
You are Hostages of the energy price and the Saudis now.
Not so with solar.

90% if the posters are low IQ MAGAts here.
90%.
`

*Please note westwall  "Disagree" feedbacks.
He cannot however Voice that disagreement because he is a science and business illiterate.*

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> As opposed 90 Trillion to rebuild Fossil plants?
> Alot of the 'cost' will just be normal replacing old Fossil plants which don't have to be fed with Saudi Fuel for 30 years.
> 
> `



Which plants still burn oil?

Idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Consumers are paying with increased utility bills.  Check out the cost of power in California: more than double the cost in the cheapest state.



Germany pays triple......because green is cheaper. LOL!


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


Why are you telling us this?

no one takes it personally except fanatics like you

I dont think windmills and solar panels can ever fully replace fossil fuel, but nuclear could

so if the greenies ignore the obvious they will never fully achieve their dreams of saving the polar bears


----------



## Flash (Jan 4, 2022)

*When will these stupid Economics denier Moon Bats understand that you don't "outshine" jackshit with government subsidies, mandates and artificial shitty Environmental Wacko polices?

False Economics just like AGW is false Climate Science.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> *When will these stupid Economics denier Moon Bats understand that you don't "outshine" jackshit with government subsidies, mandates and artificial shitty Environmental Wacko polices?
> 
> False Economics just like AGW is false Climate Science.*


The fossil fuel and nuclear companies get far more subsidies than does renewables. And renewables are still less costly than those forms of electrical generation. You fools are such losers.


----------



## Flash (Jan 4, 2022)

*These Environmental Wackos are like child like with their stupid fantasies.

The morons think they can have all the energy they need from solar arrays and wind farms and they can sit around Walden Pond all day long smoking pot, being groovy and not having a care in the world.

Of course the reality is much different.  Solar and wind are terrible technologies that only exist with stupid government subsidies and mandates and will destroy our economy.

Being Science and Economics Deniers they don't understand that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> The fossil fuel and nuclear companies get far more subsidies than does renewables. And renewables are still less costly than those forms of electrical generation. You fools are such losers.



Writing off a business expense is not a fossil fuel subsidy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> And renewables are still less costly than those forms of electrical generation.



When are German electricity prices going to be less than ours?

Any day now?


----------



## Flash (Jan 4, 2022)

Can you imagine the stupidity of those idiots stuck in that 24 hr DC traffic with an Environmental Wacko EV?  LOL!

If they tried to heat the vehicle the battery would run down real quick.  The longer they sat the colder the battery will get and more power lost.

Terrible technology.


----------



## elektra (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Wrong
> We pay FPL/Florida Power and Light 7% Less this year because Solar in Fl is very efficient.


First and foremost, solar is not efficient anywhere. The proof is the $100 trillion dollar price tag. 

You pay 7% less because of government subsidies, rules, and regulations that artificially push the price down.

Generous electricity buy-back rates
Property tax exemption
Federal Solar Tax Rebate
Florida state sales tax rebate

You pay less because government forces itself into the free market and upsets capitalism.
You would pay even less if the government quit picking the winners and losers


----------



## abu afak (Jan 4, 2022)

elektra said:


> First and foremost, solar is not efficient anywhere. The proof is the $100 trillion dollar price tag.
> 
> You pay 7% less because of government subsidies, rules, and regulations that artificially push the price down.
> 
> ...


I doubt could substantiate that while we can all agree why YOU are paying more for electric and gasoline: Dependence on Fossil Fuels.

Been nice.

`


----------



## elektra (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I doubt could substantiate that while we can all agree why YOU are paying more for electric and gasoline: Dependence on Fossil Fuels.
> 
> Been nice.
> 
> `


_Florida law requires net metering customers are compensated at the retail rate, so FPL customers are credited for the energy produced by their solar systems at their electricity rate._

Florida customers are paid a retail rate, not the wholesale rate. That is very generous indeed. 

And yes, because of Democrat policies, I pay more for electricity and gasoline. 

Dependence on Fossil Fuels, true, Green Energy has increased the use of Fossil Fuels, the manufacturing of Solar Cells increases the use for Fossil Fuels. 

Solar not only costs more to produce, but it also increased demand for Fossil Fuels which increases the price of Fossil Fuels. 

I have substantiated one point I made. You are think I can not substantiate the other 3, aba afuk?


----------



## elektra (Jan 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Wrong
> We pay FPL/Florida Power and Light 7% Less this year because Solar in Fl is very efficient.
> They don't even have to build another plant saving Millions as customers are using solar and selling it back to them cheaper (and cleaner) than building any new plant.
> 
> ...





> I doubt could substantiate that



I substantiated my post, and seeings how you have made unsubstantiated claims. It is up to you, by your rules, to substantiate your claims. 

I doubt you can. As a courtesy, I proved I can substantiate my post, even though your prior post is unsubstantiated. So let us all see if you are a, "dumb asshole" (I can use the word you used, and use it in a manly way, correct?) and a hypocrite.

So, substantiate, I am betting you are illiterate. 

hostage of the saudis? because the democrats are forcing us to buy saudi oil? sounds like we are hostage to the democrat dictators in the usa


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 4, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> The fossil fuel and nuclear companies get far more subsidies than does renewables. And renewables are still less costly than those forms of electrical generation. You fools are such losers.


That's total bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> Can you imagine the stupidity of those idiots stuck in that 24 hr DC traffic with an Environmental Wacko EV?  LOL!
> 
> If they tried to heat the vehicle the battery would run down real quick.  The longer they sat the colder the battery will get and more power lost.
> 
> Terrible technology.


As usual, you are proving once again how truly ignorant you are. 

If people get stuck on the road during a storm and are driving an electric car, how will they keep warm? The battery can't do it, it will die too quickly.

Actually, the battery can keep you warm - for several (ten) hours.

Heating uses 1–2 kWh per hour.
Older EVs had a battery of 30–40 kWh, current (new) ones have in most cases 50–75 kWh, the big ones go up to 100 kWh, the future generations will go even beyond that.

Normal drives take a few hours, if you are stranded, they may take a few hours more.

Snow storms are predictable, they don’t happen in summer, so it is easy to plan in an EV to have in stormy weather some 10–20 kWh (depending on the size of the battery and the car) as a reserve.
Some chargers are along almost any route, it just take some planning ahead.
Some EVs (like Teslas) even have a built-in computer that does just that.

It’s like having some reserve in a petrol car, not allowing the car to ever go below 1/4 of the tank. An empty tank doesn’t warm you either. No difference.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> That's total bullshit.


What liars you dumb fucks are. 

Fossil Fuels Received *$5.9 Trillion* In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds. Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund. Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total.Oct 6, 2021





						Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
					






					e360.yale.edu


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2022)

elektra said:


> I substantiated my post, and seeings how you have made unsubstantiated claims. It is up to you, by your rules, to substantiate your claims.
> 
> I doubt you can. As a courtesy, I proved I can substantiate my post, even though your prior post is unsubstantiated. So let us all see if you are a, "dumb asshole" (I can use the word you used, and use it in a manly way, correct?) and a hypocrite.
> 
> ...


Your bill includes these electricity charges plus other charges that apply to all PGE customers, such as a basic charge, distribution charge and supplemental adjustments. See the residential rate tariff for more information on all the charges included on your bill.
Time of Use rates also include a 0.722 cent per kWh credit for the first 1,000 kWh used. This credit is not applicable to separately metered Electric Vehicle Time of Use option.

Time of Use period​Time of Use price​Basic Service price​On-peak12.380 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWhMid-peak7.051 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWhOff-peak4.128 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWh



Oregon has a lot of renewable power. Hydro and wind, and a fast increasing amount of solar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> What liars you dumb fucks are.
> 
> Fossil Fuels Received *$5.9 Trillion* In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds. Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund. Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total.Oct 6, 2021
> 
> ...



_
Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. The remaining 92 percent were implicit subsidies, which took the form of tax breaks *or, to a much larger degree, health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels, according to the analysis.*_

LOL! Moron.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. The remaining 92 percent were implicit subsidies, which took the form of tax breaks *or, to a much larger degree, health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels, according to the analysis.*_
> 
> LOL! Moron.


Gee whizzers, so that is only $492 billion. And if I hit someone else's vehicle and damage it, I am expected to pay that damage, whether I have insurance or not. But the damage that the use of fossil fuels does to forests and people are expected to by payed for by the victims. Gotta love the ethics you embrace.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Gee whizzers, so that is only $492 billion. And if I hit someone else's vehicle and damage it, I am expected to pay that damage, whether I have insurance or not. But the damage that the use of fossil fuels does to forests and people are expected to by payed for by the victims. Gotta love the ethics you embrace.



*Gee whizzers, so that is only $492 billion.*

Not $5.9 trillion? LOL!

*Gotta love the ethics you embrace.*

I love the math you don't understand.

Tell me why writing off a business expense is a subsidy for an oil company.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Gee whizzers, so that is only $492 billion.*
> 
> Not $5.9 trillion? LOL!
> 
> ...


Tell me why no one ever gave me extra money for the fewer years I had left to work, every year I worked? Depletion, you know.


----------



## elektra (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Your bill includes these electricity charges plus other charges that apply to all PGE customers, such as a basic charge, distribution charge and supplemental adjustments. See the residential rate tariff for more information on all the charges included on your bill.
> Time of Use rates also include a 0.722 cent per kWh credit for the first 1,000 kWh used. This credit is not applicable to separately metered Electric Vehicle Time of Use option.
> 
> Time of Use period​Time of Use price​Basic Service price​On-peak12.380 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWhMid-peak7.051 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWhOff-peak4.128 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWh
> ...


Oregon imports electricity from Wyoming, made from coal.


----------



## elektra (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Your bill includes these electricity charges plus other charges that apply to all PGE customers, such as a basic charge, distribution charge and supplemental adjustments. See the residential rate tariff for more information on all the charges included on your bill.
> Time of Use rates also include a 0.722 cent per kWh credit for the first 1,000 kWh used. This credit is not applicable to separately metered Electric Vehicle Time of Use option.
> 
> Time of Use period​Time of Use price​Basic Service price​On-peak12.380 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWhMid-peak7.051 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWhOff-peak4.128 ¢ per kWhUp to 1000 kWh: 6.329 ¢ per kWh > 1000 kWh: 7.051 ¢ per kWh
> ...


You electric bill has absolutely nothing to do with someone's comment to me, you old moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Tell me why no one ever gave me extra money for the fewer years I had left to work, every year I worked? Depletion, you know.



If you were a mine or a well, you'd have a tax deduction.
Just like if you were a depreciating piece of equipment or building.
Like every business deducts expenses. Not a subsidy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> What liars you dumb fucks are.
> 
> Fossil Fuels Received *$5.9 Trillion* In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds. Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund.


Utter horse shit.  What were these so-called "subsidies?"



Old Rocks said:


> Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total.Oct 6, 2021



You mean real subsidies, as opposed to the imaginary ones that progs makeup..


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. The remaining 92 percent were implicit subsidies, which took the form of tax breaks *or, to a much larger degree, health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels, according to the analysis.*_
> 
> LOL! Moron.


Fossil fuels are beneficial to the environment.  They supply CO2 that plants need to live.  The planet is getting greener because of fossil fuels and our farmland is becoming more productive, which means we need less of it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you were a mine or a well, you'd have a tax deduction.
> Just like if you were a depreciating piece of equipment or building.
> Like every business deducts expenses. Not a subsidy.


I've seen the progs try to pull this scam numerous times in the past.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Gee whizzers, so that is only $492 billion. And if I hit someone else's vehicle and damage it, I am expected to pay that damage, whether I have insurance or not. But the damage that the use of fossil fuels does to forests and people are expected to by payed for by the victims. Gotta love the ethics you embrace.


The 8% is also bullshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You mean real subsidies, as opposed to the imaginary ones that progs makeup..



He was only off by $5.4 trillion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I've seen the progs try to pull this scam numerous times in the past.



They're really bad at math and accounting.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They're really bad at math and accounting.


There's also the fact that they are fond of lying.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Then try posting something that reflects intelligence and surprise us all.


After you


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Fossil fuels are beneficial to the environment.  They supply CO2 that plants need to live.  The planet is getting greener because of fossil fuels and our farmland is becoming more productive, which means we need less of it.


Now little miss fuck finger, the plants did just fine without us burning fossil fuels for several hundred million years. I am sure that the forests in Oregon and California are so much more productive for the fact that several thousand square miles of forest have burnt because of the increased heat and drought that are the result of burning those fossil fuels.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Now little miss fuck finger, the plants did just fine without us burning fossil fuels for several hundred million years.


Actually, that's not true.  Over the last few million years CO2 levels have lowered to the point where it can barely support plant growth.



Old Rocks said:


> I am sure that the forests in Oregon and California are so much more productive for the fact that several thousand square miles of forest have burnt because of the increased heat and drought that are the result of burning those fossil fuels.



They burnt in Oregon and California because of improper forest management.  They burnt in Australia because of arson.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Actually, that's not true.  Over the last few million years CO2 levels have lowered to the point where it can barely support plant growth.
> 
> 
> 
> They burnt in Oregon and California because of improper forest management.  They burnt in Australia because of arson.


LOL  What a doofus you are. Barely support plant life? Have you ever been where the ground was not covered in concrete? 3000 year old Sequoias spent most of their lives at 280 ppm of CO2. The fires in Oregon and Australia were the result of drought and very extreme winds. Both the result of a changing climate due to the increased GHG's in the atmosphere. That is what the scientists are telling us, and that is what most citizens of the US now accept. Of course, the rightwingnuts, the kissers of the orange ass, cannot accept the truth. LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  What a doofus you are. Barely support plant life? Have you ever been where the ground was not covered in concrete? 3000 year old Sequoias spent most of their lives at 280 ppm of CO2. The fires in Oregon and Australia were the result of drought and very extreme winds. Both the result of a changing climate due to the increased GHG's in the atmosphere. That is what the scientists are telling us, and that is what most citizens of the US now accept. Of course, the rightwingnuts, the kissers of the orange ass, cannot accept the truth. LOL



*The fires in Oregon and Australia were the result of drought and very extreme winds. Both the result of a changing climate due to the increased GHG's in the atmosphere. *

How hot, dry and windy would it be at 400 ppm? At 350 ppm? Link?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The fires in Oregon and Australia were the result of drought and very extreme winds. Both the result of a changing climate due to the increased GHG's in the atmosphere. *
> 
> How hot, dry and windy would it be at 400 ppm? At 350 ppm? Link?


LOL You put more energy into the atmosphere, you will get a more energetic atmosphere. Pretty straightforward. And if you hot and dry comes with a very high wind, well, one lightning strike, and you have hell on Earth. In fact, you sometimes do not even need hot, just dry and a high wind, as we saw last month in Colorado and Kansas. Of course, according to you people, that happens every December, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL You put more energy into the atmosphere, you will get a more energetic atmosphere. Pretty straightforward. And if you hot and dry comes with a very high wind, well, one lightning strike, and you have hell on Earth. In fact, you sometimes do not even need hot, just dry and a high wind, as we saw last month in Colorado and Kansas. Of course, according to you people, that happens every December, right?



*You put more energy into the atmosphere, you will get a more energetic atmosphere. Pretty straightforward. *

Right.

How hot, dry and windy would it be at 400 ppm? At 350 ppm?

*Of course, according to you people, that happens every December, right?*

How many times did it happen in the last 1,000 Decembers?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You put more energy into the atmosphere, you will get a more energetic atmosphere. Pretty straightforward. *
> 
> Right.
> 
> ...


How many houses were burned up in one day in Colorado by a wildfire in December in the last 1000 years?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> How many houses were burned up in one day in Colorado by a wildfire in December in the last 1000 years?



Exactly.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  What a doofus you are. Barely support plant life? Have you ever been where the ground was not covered in concrete? 3000 year old Sequoias spent most of their lives at 280 ppm of CO2. The fires in Oregon and Australia were the result of drought and very extreme winds. Both the result of a changing climate due to the increased GHG's in the atmosphere. That is what the scientists are telling us, and that is what most citizens of the US now accept. Of course, the rightwingnuts, the kissers of the orange ass, cannot accept the truth. LOL


Wrong, turd.  In Australia, It was established beyond doubt that the fires were all the result of arson.  The forest fires in Oregon would have been small but the failure to clear away brush near populated areas made them into huge problems.  The fact has been documented over and over.  However, we understand that you enviro-wakos refuse to accept truth.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 7, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong, turd.  In Australia, It was established beyond doubt that the fires were all the result of arson.  The forest fires in Oregon would have been small but the failure to clear away brush near populated areas made them into huge problems.  The fact has been documented over and over.  However, we understand that you enviro-wakos refuse to accept truth.


You fucked up liar! There were over 1000 square miles of forest burned in Oregon in 2021. 

Oregon wildfires by the numbers: 826,000 acres, 174 homes ...​https://www.registerguard.com › story › news › 2021/10/09



Oct 9, 2021 — Largest & most expensive wildfires of _2021_. 1: Bootleg _Fire_. _Size_: 413,717 acres; Cost: $100,900,000; Cause: lightning; Location: 15 miles NW of ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 7, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong, turd.  In Australia, It was established beyond doubt that the fires were all the result of arson.  The forest fires in Oregon would have been small but the failure to clear away brush near populated areas made them into huge problems.  The fact has been documented over and over.  However, we understand that you enviro-wakos refuse to accept truth.


You are such a lying POS. 

What caused the 2019–20 Australian bushfires?​Geoscience Australia states that lightning is the main natural cause of bushfires, accounting for about half of all cases:



> Bushfires can originate from both human activity and natural causes with lightning the predominant natural source, accounting for about half of all ignitions in Australia. Fires of human origin currently account for the remainder and are classified as accidental or deliberate.


The CSIRO states that the most common cause of bushfires is lightning and that fires started by people are mostly accidental:



> Bushfires are the result of a combination of weather and vegetation (which acts as a fuel for the fire), together with a way for the fire to begin – most commonly due to a lightning strike and sometimes human-influences (mostly accidental such as the use of machinery which produces a spark). Depending on weather conditions, embers can be transported by wind from one location to another, causing new fires or spotting.


The NSW RFS reported that the Gospers Mountain fire was started by lightning on 26 October 2019 and ‘burnt through more than 512,000 hectares across the Lithgow, Hawkesbury, Hunter Valley, Cudgegong, Blue Mountains and Central Coast local government areas’.

On 3 February 2020 local media reported that the Kangaroo Island fires had been started by lightning. According to the Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) and the NSW RFS, the majority of the 2019–20 fires in Victoria and NSW were caused by lightning. However, it was reported in mid-January that the main cause of the December 2019 fires in Tasmania was arson, with a Tasmanian Fire Service spokesperson quoted as saying ‘Approximately 21,000 of the 35,000 hectares burnt is a result of deliberately lit fires’.

A discarded cigarette was believed to be the accidental cause of the Binna Burra fire in the Gold Coast hinterland in September 2019 and the Orroral Valley fire in the ACT in January 2020 was ‘likely caused by a landing light from an Army MRH-90 helicopter, while the aircraft was on the ground’.




__





						2019–20 Australian bushfires—frequently asked questions: a quick guide
					

12 March 2020 PDF version [301KB] Lisa Richards and Nigel Brew Foreign Affairs, Defence & Security Lizzie Smith Science, Technology, Environment & Resources This quick guide aims to answer some of the frequently asked questions relating to the 2019–20 Australian bus




					www.aph.gov.au


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And taxpayers won't be paying for solar either, customers will.
> The plants are being built by Private co and investors.
> Green stocks/utilities (like Next Era Energy) are building like any other Power Plants.
> 
> ...


Where ?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> You fucked up liar! There were over 1000 square miles of forest burned in Oregon in 2021.
> 
> Oregon wildfires by the numbers: 826,000 acres, 174 homes ...​https://www.registerguard.com › story › news › 2021/10/09
> 
> ...


The sun caused those fires?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 8, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> You fucked up liar! There were over 1000 square miles of forest burned in Oregon in 2021.
> 
> Oregon wildfires by the numbers: 826,000 acres, 174 homes ...​https://www.registerguard.com › story › news › 2021/10/09
> 
> ...


How does that prove global warming was the cause?

_Climate Change or Bad Forest Management?_​​_Recent research indicates that it is actually the stringent disallowance of controlled burns that is contributing to today’s wildfires.  Fire suppression without controlled burns is the official United States forestry policy, which results in a build-up of dry underbrush over time. Such accumulated underbrush serves as kindling that can propel a wildfire into an extreme megafire._​


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 8, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> You are such a lying POS.
> 
> What caused the 2019–20 Australian bushfires?​Geoscience Australia states that lightning is the main natural cause of bushfires, accounting for about half of all cases:
> 
> ...


Australia's Epic Fires Caused By Bad Forestry And Arson, Not Climate Change


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Australia's Epic Fires Caused By Bad Forestry And Arson, Not Climate Change


A lying denialist quoting lying denialists. 









						"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
					

A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## jc456 (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> A lying denialist quoting lying denialists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A lying warmer quoting a lying warmer. See how that works?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> WTF do those [mini] ANECDOTES have to do with the Macro-Stats/Movement I posted in the OP.
> 
> You're Stupid.
> Understand?
> ...


Just answer a simple question. Do you have solar panels at home?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> 18% of electrical generation by renewables in 2017, more this year, and even more next year. And then there are those that put adequate solar on their roof, with battery storage, and power their vehicle and home themselves.


As long as my lights stay on and the electric is cheap, I don't give two hoots if it's from hamsters running around on a wheel.

If the electric is expensive and prone to power outages, I'll be damn annoyed.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 9, 2022)

Investment in renewables will likely increase because insurance companies are being pressured not to cover fossil fuel projects. Not really a rocket science subject.


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

Global Investment in Wind and Solar Outshines Fossil Fuels

or, in plain english

Global investment in Wind and Solar is Extremely Expensive Compared to Fossil Fuels

of course there is more money spent on wind and solar which only offer a tiny trickle of electricity. You must build by the square mile, for years, before we even have a small percentage of our electricity come from wind or solar


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 9, 2022)

elektra said:


> Global Investment in Wind and Solar Outshines Fossil Fuels
> 
> or, in plain english
> 
> ...


Renewables and EV's are so good, companies and people are given subsidies to take them on.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 9, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Renewables and EV's are so good, companies and people are given subsidies to take them on.



Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “Cheapest…electricity in History” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.








						Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA
					

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.




					www.carbonbrief.org
				




""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “Cheapest…electricity in history” with the Technology Cheaper than Coal and Gas in Most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “Cheapest…electricity in History” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bullshit.  Does that count all the subsidies it receives?  Does it include the 100% backup from fossil fuels it requires?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “Cheapest…electricity in History” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And now the utilities are actually encouraging customers to put in solar and batteries and be part of a VPP. 

*Utilities find VPP benefits*​Some utilities in the Northeast have established VPP programs. Three utilities (Eversource, National Grid, Cape Light Compact) working in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have combined forces under the ConnectedSolutions program to pay customers annual incentives to access behind-the-meter stored energy. The program is set up as a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) design, and payout is determined by the brand of battery and how much it is used.




Vermont installer SunCommon wraps up a Tesla Powerwall install
Vermont utility Green Mountain Power (GMP) has also started a BYOD program, but it really put itself on the map in 2017 as the first utility in the country to partner specifically with Tesla to use customer Powerwalls in a VPP. GMP’s use of 3,000 Powerwalls installed in customers’ homes, along with utility-scale batteries, resulted in more than $3 million in reduced grid and electricity costs for customers in 2020.








						Utilities are taking the reins in the Northeast and asking for customer-sited storage
					

Virtual power plants are making behind-the-meter storage more attractive to utilities. Residential energy storage adoption is growing in the Northeast,




					www.solarpowerworldonline.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Bullshit.  Does that count all the subsidies it receives?  Does it include the 100% backup from fossil fuels it requires?


Now dumb little fuck finger solar, through VPP's is addressing the backup issue head on. Add in grid scale storage, and we no longer need poisonous fossil fuel generation.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Now dumb little fuck finger solar, through VPP's is addressing the backup issue head on. Add in grid scale storage, and we no longer need poisonous fossil fuel generation.


How many trillions will that cost? How are they addressing the "backup" issue without resorting to fossil fuels or a hugely expensive storage system?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> How many trillions will that cost? How are they addressing the "backup" issue without resorting to fossil fuels or a hugely expensive storage system?


Little miss fuck finger, you are obviously one dumb ass. Why the hell don't you read the article, or at least look up what a VPP is before you make such a silly fool of yourself. LOL


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Little miss fuck finger, you are obviously one dumb ass. Why the hell don't you read the article, or at least look up what a VPP is before you make such a silly fool of yourself. LOL


The article doesn't mention the term "VPP." dumbass.  Why should I look up some term you decided to use?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> The article doesn't mention the term "VPP." dumbass.  Why should I look up some term you decided to use?


Dumb little miss fuck finger, the post just prior to the post you quoted has the link to a full article on VPP's.  Of course you do not have to look up what a VPP is. That is your whole goal in life, remaining as ignorant and stupid as possible. By the way, as two states and the Federal government is handing out indictments, guess who is shitting their pants. It sure isn't Biden.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb little miss fuck finger, the post just prior to the post you quoted has the link to a full article on VPP's.  Of course you do not have to look up what a VPP is. That is your whole goal in life, remaining as ignorant and stupid as possible. By the way, as two states and the Federal government is handing out indictments, guess who is shitting their pants. It sure isn't Biden.


In other words, it doesn't matter what it means.  If it was important you would just explain what it means.  You spew bile about because you know it won't help your case.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> In other words, it doesn't matter what it means.  If it was important you would just explain what it means.  You spew bile about because you know it won't help your case.



Here is what it means.

In Chicago, we won't need natural gas power to backup our solar, during the cloudy, snowy winter, because our neighbors, who are depending on solar, during the cloudy, snowy winter, will have a nifty battery system that will store enough power for the electric company to borrow their extra for us to use to make up for the shortfall of our solar panels.


Make sense now? LOL!


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

Hahahaha,

No quoted or direct links to anything claimed.

Solar and Wind with battery storage only costs $100 trillion dollars. We dictate that is the cheapest source of electricity and you will obey what we dictate


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> In other words, it doesn't matter what it means.  If it was important you would just explain what it means.  You spew bile about because you know it won't help your case.


No, I am not going to do basic homework for the willfully ignorant. It would be cruel to deprive you of your little security blanket of ignorance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

elektra said:


> Hahahaha,
> 
> No quoted or direct links to anything claimed.
> 
> Solar and Wind with battery storage only costs $100 trillion dollars. We dictate that is the cheapest source of electricity and you will obey what we dictate


Post #372 liar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Here is what it means.
> 
> In Chicago, we won't need natural gas power to backup our solar, during the cloudy, snowy winter, because our neighbors, who are depending on solar, during the cloudy, snowy winter, will have a nifty battery system that will store enough power for the electric company to borrow their extra for us to use to make up for the shortfall of our solar panels.
> 
> ...


Hmm, and there is no wind in the area of Chicago? One of the beauties of wind and solar is that they compliment each other. So when it is cloudy and stormy, wind produces lots of power, and in the warm calm months solar produces lots of power.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmm, and there is no wind in the area of Chicago? One of the beauties of wind and solar is that they compliment each other. So when it is cloudy and stormy, wind produces lots of power, and in the warm calm months solar produces lots of power.



*Hmm, and there is no wind in the area of Chicago?*

Wind is awesome!!!

Now how is my neighbor's solar charged battery going to help me in the winter?


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Post #372 liar.


#372 is about fantasy, something that does not exist, something that is not proven to work

If anything, the good old fashion grid that has worked for a 100 years shows these ideas are pure bullshit.

A house can not power itself with solar yet we are to believe house batteries can power a nation?

Moronic yet I must say, you morons are building it and taxpayers and the public seeing electric bills rise across the usa are paying for it.

$100 trillion is the initial cost. The rich and elite will each make billions. 

The public will suffer. My energy bill is up $400 a month during winter. 

Thanks to our resources being wasted


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

$100 trillion dollars and guaranteed power outages is just beginning.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 9, 2022)

elektra said:


> Hahahaha,
> *No quoted or direct links to anything claimed.*
> Solar and Wind with battery storage only costs $100 trillion dollars. We dictate that is the cheapest source of electricity and you will obey what we dictate


Actually NO ONE ON YOUR SIDE POSTED LINKS TO ANYTHING\
Only me and my side did.
You're ALL a bunch of angry and 100% EMPTY RW CLOWNS
again:

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “Cheapest…electricity in History” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.








						Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA
					

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.




					www.carbonbrief.org
				




""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “Cheapest…electricity in history” with the Technology Cheaper than Coal and Gas in Most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."


`


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Actually NO ONE ON YOUR SIDE POSTED LINKS TO ANYTHING\
> Only me and my side did.
> You're ALL a bunch of angry and 100% EMPTY RW CLOWNS
> again:
> ...


Link to the report not an article

Cheap, $100 trillion is the beginning cost as stated by democrats.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 9, 2022)

elektra said:


> $100 trillion dollars and guaranteed power outages is just beginning.



That's not a bug, it's a feature.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 9, 2022)

elektra said:


> Link to the report not an article
> 
> Cheap, $100 trillion is the beginning cost as stated by democrats.


*LINK for "100 Trillion" you've claimed several times?
(and compare it to what 30 years on O&G will cost?)*

Otherwise you are FULL OF SH*T.
YOU ARE FULL of SH*T
One side has the burden of links but you can just make stuff up Junior?

*The vast majority of New Power generation Money is Private unsubsidized Capital going to Renewables.

`*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Hmm, and there is no wind in the area of Chicago?*
> 
> Wind is awesome!!!
> 
> Now how is my neighbor's solar charged battery going to help me in the winter?


Are you truly that stupid? You can also charge that battery off the grid at night with prices are low, and use it for the peak hours. And solar does work in the winter, just at less power. Covered with snow? Sometimes, and then no power. However, those storms usually come in with plenty of wind, and that can be used to charge the batteries in winter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

elektra said:


> #372 is about fantasy, something that does not exist, something that is not proven to work
> 
> If anything, the good old fashion grid that has worked for a 100 years shows these ideas are pure bullshit.
> 
> ...


If you live in California, and have a $400 a month power bill, and are dissing solar, you are one stupid mother.


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> If you live in California, and have a $400 a month power bill, and are dissing solar, you are one stupid mother.


I agree that the government is dictating prices of electricity all across our nation.

How long will solar customers get away with not paying their fair share.

$100 trillion green energy start up cost. Democrats dictate this will be the economy, period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *LINK for "100 Trillion" you've claimed several times?
> (and compare it to what 30 years on O&G will cost?)*
> 
> Otherwise you are FULL OF SH*T.
> ...


It is not the government that has built the vast wind farms along the Columbia, but private investors. Companies that earned back their investments, and then some. In most places the VPP's are either individual home owners investments, or utility and home owner partnerships. And the combination of grid scale storage with solar and wind is becoming the rule rather than the exception because of grid stability and increased saving on peak periods.


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *LINK for "100 Trillion" you've claimed several times?
> (and compare it to what 30 years on O&G will cost?)*
> 
> Otherwise you are FULL OF SH*T.
> ...


Links don't prove shit. As you have proven.

Many of us watch the news and have heard AOC and Bernie sanders state the price is $100 trillion.

Funny thing is, you never actually post what the cost has been, is, and will be, yet you challenge me to prove something you don't know a thing about.

Yes, if Google will not link or allow the comment made, to be found,  then it is not true.

Google is the truth.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Here is what it means.
> 
> In Chicago, we won't need natural gas power to backup our solar, during the cloudy, snowy winter, because our neighbors, who are depending on solar, during the cloudy, snowy winter, will have a nifty battery system that will store enough power for the electric company to borrow their extra for us to use to make up for the shortfall of our solar panels.
> 
> ...


And how much do these battery systems cost, and how long do they last when there is no sunlight?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> It is not the government that has built the vast wind farms along the Columbia, but private investors. Companies that earned back their investments, and then some. In most places the VPP's are either individual home owners investments, or utility and home owner partnerships. And the combination of grid scale storage with solar and wind is becoming the rule rather than the exception because of grid stability and increased saving on peak periods.


They built them only because of enormous government subsidies.


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

__





						aoc green new deal $100 trillion at DuckDuckGo
					

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.




					duckduckgo.com


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Actually NO ONE ON YOUR SIDE POSTED LINKS TO ANYTHING\
> Only me and my side did.
> You're ALL a bunch of angry and 100% EMPTY RW CLOWNS
> again:
> ...


Sorry. I followed the link and it says solar and wind are subsidized and thee most expensive form of electricity


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Are you truly that stupid? You can also charge that battery off the grid at night with prices are low, and use it for the peak hours. And solar does work in the winter, just at less power. Covered with snow? Sometimes, and then no power. However, those storms usually come in with plenty of wind, and that can be used to charge the batteries in winter.



*You can also charge that battery off the grid at night with prices are low, and use it for the peak hours*

Oh, so I can use my neighbor's excess solar, when I have none in the day time (and neither does he) and he can recharge from the nat gas grid at night, when neither of us has solar.
Am I borrowing from him at night too?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

elektra said:


> Sorry. I followed the link and it says solar and wind are subsidized and thee most expensive form of electricity


Lying again, as per usual. Without lies, you would be unable to post, here is the reality;













						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You can also charge that battery off the grid at night with prices are low, and use it for the peak hours*
> 
> Oh, so I can use my neighbor's excess solar, when I have none in the day time (and neither does he) and he can recharge from the nat gas grid at night, when neither of us has solar.
> Am I borrowing from him at night too?


Ah well, some will be purposely stupid just to support and unsupportable point. Do you know why it is called a grid? Do you suppose that Chicago is not connected to parts of the US that has ample power? You are really going down the rabbit hole in your dislike of solar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 9, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah well, some will be purposely stupid just to support and unsupportable point. Do you know why it is called a grid? Do you suppose that Chicago is not connected to parts of the US that has ample power? You are really going down the rabbit hole in your dislike of solar.



Just pointing out the idiocy of the claim that solar plus VPP in Chicago in winter is useful.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 9, 2022)

elektra said:


> Links don't prove shit. As you have proven.
> 
> Many of us watch the news and have heard AOC and Bernie sanders state the price is $100 trillion.
> 
> ...


LOL you ldiot
*Sanders' "100 Trillion" is for his whole agenda, not just 'Climate.'
16 Trillion was for Climate.
Why don't you know how to use google?*
You are Willfully Ignorant.
It's so easy to get info/FACTS these days yet you Don't.
Stupid? Partisan Lazy just throwing up numbers?

Is Sanders' 'plan' everyone's?
What will staying all Fossil cost?
Does solar cost much less very year? Down 85% in a decade?

IAC
"..The $97.5 trillion price tag is made up mostly of the costs of Sanders’s THREE most ambitious proposals. Sanders concedes that his *Medicare For All plan would increase federal spending by “somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period.”*​*He pledges to spend $16.3 trillion on his climate plan. *​And his proposal to guarantee all Americans a *full-time government job paying $15 an hour, with full benefits, is estimated to cost $30.1 trillion.*​*The final $11.1 trillion includes $3 trillion to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public-college tuition*—plus $1.8 trillion to expand Social Security, $2.5 trillion on housing, $1.6 trillion on paid family leave, $1 trillion on infrastructure, $800 billion on general K-12 education spending, and an additional $400 billion on higher public school teacher salaries.​








						The Unaffordable Candidate
					

Bernie Sanders’s $97 trillion agenda would impose incomprehensible costs.




					www.city-journal.org
				




*So that it's really 16 Trillion over 10 years by the most Left wing proposer.
But In fact, the GND is happening without Govt help.
It is exploding because it's economical.*

So look before you throw sh*t/LIES up next time
You and the other *holes post NO facts.

`


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> If you live in California, and have a $400 a month power bill, and are dissing solar, you are one stupid mother.


Here's the renewables on the UK -





__





						Solar in Scotland
					






					www.siser.ac.uk
				




Not many dots in Scotland for PV installations, that's all down South. It's offshore wind around here.

You see the odd house with panels, but unless it's ideal direction etc.. you would be lucky to recoup the cost of your PV installation.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

elektra said:


> Global Investment in Wind and Solar Outshines Fossil Fuels
> 
> or, in plain english
> 
> ...


Nuclear is the way forward. Those against nuclear harness the power via PV's from an extremely large nuclear reactor, the Sun.

Once fusion is harnessed, man get rid of these turbines and PV's that litter the planet and wreck havoc on wildlife.


----------



## elektra (Jan 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> LOL you ldiot
> *Sanders' "100 Trillion" is for his whole agenda, not just 'Climate.'
> 16 Trillion was for Climate.
> Why don't you know how to use google?*
> ...


AOC green new deal, as confirmed by ceres.org

And yes, in addition to Sanders, $170 trillion democrats want to spend.


----------



## elektra (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Lying again, as per usual. Without lies, you would be unable to post, here is the reality;
> 
> View attachment 585953
> 
> ...


That is not Aba dabba do's link, which I addressed.

Levelized cost? Not real cost, but the magically levelized cost.

Lazard is a hocus pocus study, not reality


----------



## elektra (Jan 10, 2022)

Here is one of many clean green renewable the sky is falling websites stating we must spend $100 trillion.









						The $100 trillion question
					

INTERVIEW WITH JOEL SOLOMON, CO-FOUNDING PARTNER, RENEWAL FUNDS Q. Your book is called The Clean Money Revolution: Reinventing Power, Purpose, and Capitalism. What kind of economic revolutionary change would you like to see? We must prioritise fair and equal opportunity. Investment in women...




					www.theclimatechangeproject.today


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

elektra said:


> Here is one of many clean green renewable the sky is falling websites stating we must spend $100 trillion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Amazing how Lefties always perceive disaster, and they can fix it with money?


----------



## Crick (Jan 10, 2022)

Amazing how righties always perceive conspiracies to change things unnecessarily and steal their money in the process.  
1) Global warming is an extremely serious problem
2) Global warming is the result of human combustion of fossil fuels
3) Humans can end global warming by ceasing to burn fossil fuels
4) Doing so cannot happen without significant investment in infrastructure change

Which of these facts do you reject?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Amazing how righties always perceive conspiracies to change things unnecessarily and steal their money in the process.



That's because that's what lefties are always doing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Amazing how righties always perceive conspiracies to change things unnecessarily and steal their money in the process.
> 1) Global warming is an extremely serious problem
> 2) Global warming is the result of human combustion of fossil fuels
> 3) Humans can end global warming by ceasing to burn fossil fuels
> ...


I reject all of them.  They aren't facts.  They are leftwing hysteria.


----------



## elektra (Jan 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Amazing how righties always perceive conspiracies to change things unnecessarily and steal their money in the process.
> 1) Global warming is an extremely serious problem
> 2) Global warming is the result of human combustion of fossil fuels
> 3) Humans can end global warming by ceasing to burn fossil fuels
> ...


1) all predictions of problems caused have not materialized. Zero proof that a warmer climate is bad.

2)global warming is caused by fluctuations of the sun. Zero proof CO2 causes warming. CO2 is falsely labeled a pollutant by the government. CO2 is needed for life, for plants.

3) Global warming is not proven. Fossil fuel burning can not be the problem when the solar and wind solution requires more fossil fuels to be burned.

4) our infrastructure is not the problem. And the solution you propose, burn fossil fuels to make solar and wind power, again is what you claim the problem.


----------



## elektra (Jan 10, 2022)

Wind will be Competitive! (Secretary Chu from 2011)
					

Yes, what began in 1992 for wind’s PTC was extended in 1999… 2002 … 2004 … 2005 … 2006 … 2008 … 2009 … 2012 … 2014 … 2015 … 2016 … 2019 … 2021.




					wattsupwiththat.com
				




Wind energy, never competitive with fossil fuels, remains uncompetitive as demonstrated by the desperate attempt by the Biden Administration in BBB (Build Back Better) to extend the Production Tax Credit for a 14th time. Yes, what began in 1992 for wind’s PTC was extended in 1999… 2002 … 2004 … 2005 … 2006 … 2008 … 2009 … 2012 … 2014 … 2015 … 2016 … 2019 … 2021.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Amazing how righties always perceive conspiracies to change things unnecessarily and steal their money in the process.
> 1) Global warming is an extremely serious problem
> 2) Global warming is the result of human combustion of fossil fuels
> 3) Humans can end global warming by ceasing to burn fossil fuels
> ...


post one prediction that has come true.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Amazing how righties always perceive conspiracies to change things unnecessarily and steal their money in the process.
> 1) Global warming is an extremely serious problem
> 2) Global warming is the result of human combustion of fossil fuels
> 3) Humans can end global warming by ceasing to burn fossil fuels
> ...


You perceive global warming (I thought it was called climate change) to be so important, you still make use of fossil fuels and items derived/built by using fossil fuels.

Global warming is not all down to man. It's to do with loads of factors, earth and solar processes.

Burning fossil fuel is a tiny part of the planets processes to do with climate. Climate is much more than co2. We are in a co2 drought at 440ppm co2.

Please explain your infrastructure change without causing co2, this will be good to hear


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I reject all of them.  They aren't facts.  They are leftwing hysteria.


Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against that we have bozos with less than a third grade science education making unsupported claims. LOL Oh, who to believe.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Crick


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against that we have bozos with less than a third grade science education making unsupported claims. LOL Oh, who to believe.


Good to see you described yourself as a bozo, Mr Copy and Paste Brochure Guy.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks how many immature thumbs down shall we play


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against that we have bozos with less than a third grade science education making unsupported claims. LOL Oh, who to believe.


Two fallacies in one sentence:  Appeal to authority and bandwagon fallacy.

Every university and scientific society has a self serving motive for supporting this hoax - money, being the primary one.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

jc456 said:


> post one prediction that has come true.


You are such a dumb little fuck. The Northwest Passage has been open several times since 2007. In 2016, open enough for a 1000 passenger cruise ship to make the passage. 








						Mission Accomplished: Crystal Serenity Completes 32-Day Northwest Passage Journey
					

More than three years after the inception of the immensely ambitious plan to transit the Northwest Passage, Crystal Cruises’ luxury cruise ship Crysta



					www.businesswire.com
				




And increase in extreme weather events was predicted and we have seen that in spades. 





						Extreme Weather Events Have Increased Significantly in the Last 20 Years
					






					e360.yale.edu
				




Increase in severe droughts in drought prone areas. 








						Drought Makes its Home on the Range – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

Climate change is making droughts more frequent, severe, and pervasive. NASA satellites provide data about water availability to the U.S. Drought Monitor, which helps farmers prepare for drought, determining where and what to feed their livestock.




					climate.nasa.gov
				




Increase in wildfire risk'







__





						Climate Change Pushes Fires to Higher Ground
					

Wildfires in the western United States have been spreading to higher elevations due to warmer and drier conditions.




					earthobservatory.nasa.gov
				




Significant changes in the jet stream;


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Old Rocks how many immature thumbs down shall we play


One for every silly lying post you make. Make some posts based on reality and not your fear of change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Two fallacies in one sentence:  Appeal to authority and bandwagon fallacy.
> 
> Every university and scientific society has a self serving motive for supporting this hoax - money, being the primary one.


And I bet that if you get cancer you will ask for an auto mechanic to fix it. LOL Yes, when there is a problem, one goes to someone that has authority in that discipline. Not some dope on an anonymous message board.


----------



## Viacheslav (Jan 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> 4) Doing so cannot happen without significant investment in infrastructure change


This is possible with an affordable investment, nuclear power is a viable path to decarburization.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> One for every silly lying post you make. Make some posts based on reality and not your fear of change.


Fuck me, all your posts need a thumbs down then.

My posts are based on reality. Here's three.

1. I can't charge my EV (if I owned one) from my upstairs apartment in Scotland.

2. A Solar panel survey on my apartment states the payback is -£1805 over the lifespan of the panels.

3. The price difference between an exact new EV van over it's new ICE version from the Vauxhall dealer in the UK means, it's more expensive to go electric for the first 200,000+ miles before it becomes cheaper to own.

There's 3 real life examples for you to thumbs down.

Also, I have pointed out the conditions the dinosaurs lived in, according to scientists. Now I'm sure if we look back, you gave thumbs down for the facts with links that I posted. So you've just lied again.

You are an habitual liar.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> And I bet that if you get cancer you will ask for an auto mechanic to fix it. LOL Yes, when there is a problem, one goes to someone that has authority in that discipline. Not some dope on an anonymous message board.


and yet here you are.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Fuck me, all your posts need a thumbs down then.
> 
> My posts are based on reality. Here's three.
> 
> ...


I'm confident the northwest passage didn't exist back then, so being open or not would be difficult to resolve.  That's the issue he has, he can't get in where reality exists.  He thinks boats are traversing the northwest passage today.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I'm confident the northwest passage didn't exist back then, so being open or not would be difficult to resolve.  That's the issue he has, he can't get in where reality exists.  He thinks boats are traversing the northwest passage today.


And I am confident that you don't even know what the Northwest or Northeast Passages are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Fuck me, all your posts need a thumbs down then.
> 
> My posts are based on reality. Here's three.
> 
> ...


A Scot, eh? Well, most Scots I have met were not whiners that are unable to solve simple problems. So, because solar is not a particularly good option where you live, it is not a good option anywhere. Real sound reasoning there, old boy. 

You are correct concerning the present price of EV's, especially for work vehicles. By 2025, I expect to see them on parity in price with ICE vehicles, and far cheaper in 2030.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> A Scot, eh? Well, most Scots I have met were not whiners that are unable to solve simple problems. So, because solar is not a particularly good option where you live, it is not a good option anywhere. Real sound reasoning there, old boy.
> 
> You are correct concerning the present price of EV's, especially for work vehicles. By 2025, I expect to see them on parity in price with ICE vehicles, and far cheaper in 2030.


No, I was born in England, father Scottish and mother English. Lived within a stone's throw of the English / Scottish border all my life, I travel it every day. Live in Scotland with my girlfriend.

If I lived in a sunny climate, if I had the money, I would be stupid not to have solar. But there again, being 55, i doubt it would wise to invest in solar because how many years would I benefit after the pay back period, assuming I lived in a sunny climate. Also, is it something you can unbolt and take with you when you move house?

With EV vehicles, just have to wait and see. Current circumstances and prices makes them a no. The political movement is to scrap ICE vehicles, so the ones left running will be museum pieces and those taking them out in the summer for a week or two. But, as it's not feasible to flatten millions of homes and rebuild them with parking and charge points, technology will have to substantially increase to make them equally convenient as an ICE vehicle.

I am not against EV's, but I can't close my eyes and envisage this dream many pro-EVers have, because reality is currently different, and I'm just simply pointing out realistic circumstances.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Viacheslav said:


> This is possible with an affordable investment, nuclear power is a viable path to decarburization.


Nuclear is the least affordable option to decarburization.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear is the least affordable option to decarburization.


This is my take on nuclear. Michael Shellenberger championed renewables under Obama, so Obama's government invested billions of dollars. But now, Shellenberger claims he was wrong, renewables won't save the planet, but nuclear will. Nuclear or wind mill, if the electric is cheap, I'll buy it.

So here is Shellenberger's interesting video


So, is Shellenberger right or wrong, because climate change protestors always site work from qualified people, and Michael is well qualified.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No, I was born in England, father Scottish and mother English. Lived within a stone's throw of the English / Scottish border all my life, I travel it every day. Live in Scotland with my girlfriend.
> 
> If I lived in a sunny climate, if I had the money, I would be stupid not to have solar. But there again, being 55, i doubt it would wise to invest in solar because how many years would I benefit after the pay back period, assuming I lived in a sunny climate. Also, is it something you can unbolt and take with you when you move house?
> 
> ...


OK, we live in different circumstances. While we are north of the 45th, we are hardly as far north as you are. So solar is a very viable option here. I agree present prices for EV's are high, but that will rapidly change as the Chinese EV's enter the market. The political movement is based on the damage they do to the environment and health. 

Interesting that you are 1/2 Scot. The area where I was mostly raised had a lot of Scottish immigrants. In fact, the town of Burns, Oregon, is named for Robert Burns.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> This is my take on nuclear. Michael Shellenberger championed renewables under Obama, so Obama's government invested billions of dollars. But now, Shellenberger claims he was wrong, renewables won't save the planet, but nuclear will. Nuclear or wind mill, if the electric is cheap, I'll buy it.
> 
> So here is Shellenberger's interesting video
> 
> ...


According to Lazard, nuclear is very expensive. Also, a long time in building. Plus, I like the fact that, as a home owner, I can install solar and batteries, be independent of the grid if it goes down, and sell power to the grid most of the time. Here in Oregon, pretty much in any of the climate zones here, summer is very sunny, and winter quite windy. So a mix of solar and wind is ideal. Plus, of course, we have the great dams on the Columbia. Right now, most of the wind power being built is financed out of California, so most of the power from them is going south. However, a grid from the Idaho border to Klamath Falls would pick up both very high wind and solar potential, plus many possible geothermal areas. Most of that land is BLM, and, since most wind turbines pay $5000 a year to the farmers, that being government land, those same earnings could be applied to our National Parks and Forests. I will post the Lazard analysis below. 








						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## jc456 (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> And I am confident that you don't even know what the Northwest or Northeast Passages are.


You’d be wrong! Are ships in the northwest passage today?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, we live in different circumstances. While we are north of the 45th, we are hardly as far north as you are. So solar is a very viable option here. I agree present prices for EV's are high, but that will rapidly change as the Chinese EV's enter the market. The political movement is based on the damage they do to the environment and health.
> 
> Interesting that you are 1/2 Scot. The area where I was mostly raised had a lot of Scottish immigrants. In fact, the town of Burns, Oregon, is named for Robert Burns.


Robert Burns is a Scottish national hero, but, he shagged everything that moved, died of syphilis at a young age and apparently wrote fantastic poems and lyrics. Ask any Scotchman to list Burns's works, they say Auld Lang Syne and that's it.

One thing is for sure, if I had to succumb to an EV, I would rather walk than buy Chinese junk.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Robert Burns is a Scottish national hero, but, he shagged everything that moved, died of syphilis at a young age and apparently wrote fantastic poems and lyrics. Ask any Scotchman to list Burns's works, they say Auld Lang Syne and that's it.
> 
> One thing is for sure, if I had to succumb to an EV, I would rather walk than buy Chinese junk.


I made a funny on that, because that is exactly what we said of the Japanese cars when they first were brought over. Then came the 240Z. And then we noticed that they were lasting 200,000 to 250,000 miles, and just sipping at the gas as compared to Detroit steel. The real danger of the Chinese economy is that they may very well follow the Japanese path and out engineer us here in the West.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Robert Burns is a Scottish national hero, but, he shagged everything that moved, died of syphilis at a young age and apparently wrote fantastic poems and lyrics. Ask any Scotchman to list Burns's works, they say Auld Lang Syne and that's it.
> 
> One thing is for sure, if I had to succumb to an EV, I would rather walk than buy Chinese junk.


The story on Burns, Oregon, is that the town had an immigrant lawyer by the name of Swindell. He gave much money for parks and schools to the town, and participated in it's growth. When they decided to incorporate, some wanted to name the town after him. He said it was bad enough being a lawyer with that name, and he would be damned if he wanted to live in a town of that name. Since most there at that time were Scot or Basque, it was decided to name the town for Robert Burns. Yes, poets, artists, and musicians all seem to have those failings. I do find it interesting that even though Burns condemned the Jacobites in one of his poems, that he still remained a hero.


----------



## elektra (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> The story on Burns, Oregon, is that the town had an immigran...


Hey, dumb fucker, you disagreed with my post yet you are not man enough nor smart enough to actually respond to the facts I presented. I am just here rubbing it in your face and pointing out to everyone else, that you cant actually support your opinion with facts. 

1) all predictions of problems caused have not materialized. Zero proof that a warmer climate is bad.

2)global warming is caused by fluctuations of the sun. Zero proof CO2 causes warming. CO2 is falsely labeled a pollutant by the government. CO2 is needed for life, for plants.

3) Global warming is not proven. Fossil fuel burning can not be the problem when the solar and wind solution requires more fossil fuels to be burned.

4) our infrastructure is not the problem. And the solution you propose, burn fossil fuels to make solar and wind power, again is what you claim the problem.


----------



## elektra (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Plus, I like the fact that, as a home owner, I can install solar and batteries, be independent of the grid if it goes down, and sell power to the grid most of the time.


Uh, you are 100% wrong here. If as a home owner you install your own solar and batteries, you can not sell electricity to the grid. 

If you are tied into the scheme where the utility is forced to pay above market value for your electricity, when there is a black-out, your system is shut down, for safety reasons, and it will not power your house by design

and you claim to know all about green energy, the fact is you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> I made a funny on that, because that is exactly what we said of the Japanese cars when they first were brought over. Then came the 240Z. And then we noticed that they were lasting 200,000 to 250,000 miles, and just sipping at the gas as compared to Detroit steel. The real danger of the Chinese economy is that they may very well follow the Japanese path and out engineer us here in the West.


Now, if you put a blindfold on a person and sat them in a Japanese car, they would tell they're sat in a Japanese car because the switches and buttons work positively. Sit them on a Ford, it feels the switch or button is going to snap.

Unfortunately, Chinese products are cheap and junk.

Spoke to an engineer, they have to compete by quoting Chinese steel, because they wouldn't get the contract on British Steel. They won the contract, got the Chinese steel in and when they cut it, half melted ball bearings fell out. Quality of Chinese steel is poor, people are price driven and there's the old adage, "You get what you pay for". So when the skyscraper collapses, thank you Chinese steel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear is the least affordable option to decarburization.



Exactly!!

That's why French electricity is so much cheaper than German electricity.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 10, 2022)

elektra said:


> Hey, dumb fucker, you disagreed with my post yet you are not man enough nor smart enough to actually respond to the facts I presented. I am just here rubbing it in your face and pointing out to everyone else, that you cant actually support your opinion with facts.
> 
> 1) all predictions of problems caused have not materialized. Zero proof that a warmer climate is bad.
> 
> ...


OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.

1. Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
(I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
Sea Level issues already a problem in many places in the last few decades.
Miami Floods regularly now just on normal high tides.
Our Naval bases do too now.

US Military on the Front Lines of Extreme Heat​








						US Military on the Front Lines of Extreme Heat
					

This analysis calculates the increase in dangerously hot days that 169 major US military installations would experience under three different climate scenarios.




					www.ucsusa.org
				



Nov 11, 2019 · Updated Jan 24, 2020 to include new policy memo. Over the next three decades, *military* bases in the contiguous United States could average an extra month of dangerously-hot days each year when the heat index—or “feels like” temperature—exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis calculates the increase in dangerously hot days that the ...
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas | Union ...​








						The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas
					

Rising seas will increasingly flood many of our coastal military bases.




					www.ucsusa.org
				



https://www.bing.com/search?q=militray front lines cliumate chaneg&pc=0MON&ptag=C24N191AB95782FAFE&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127#

2. PAST warming was caused, or at least started by the sun.
Not this Time.
Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).

*How do we/they know? They have looked at past warming cycles and they were caused by the the earths orbital position/increased solar radiation/"forcing."
That is Not true of this one.*
Usually that solar forcing sets loose the Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc) which dramatically increases the warming. This time however solar radiation has not increased but the trapping effect of the GHG's we have pumped at an unprecedented rate/speed into the atmo has.
Co2 has increased from 280 PPM in 1850 to over 400PPM now: the Industrial Revolution. Most of it the last 70 yrs.
Sci guys have measured the radiation-in: (stable), and radiation-out: (partly but increasingly blocked from reflecting back into space at the precise spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)

Also see my thread on this: containing the info above I encapsulated in part.




__





						How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
					

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.  About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results  How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





3/4. Fallacious attempt
Solar and other renewables still use Fossils fuels to produce them but as they become a higher percentage of power generation they will; reproduce themselves.


5. In summary you posts are Pieces of sh*t, just repeating trite and wrong RW talking points.
You're just a loudmouth MAGAt.
*You aren't even debate material, but I graced your crap anyway.
Maybe you will finally start to post like you have a 3 digit IQ but I doubt it.*

`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear is the least affordable option to decarburization.


Its far more affordable than solar.  The only thing that makes nuclear expensive are the constant legal obstacles that turds like you are always putting up.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Its far more affordable than solar.  The only thing that makes nuclear expensive are the constant legal obstacles that turds like you are always putting up.


*You Stooopid little Troll.
You just put up combative one-liners.
Put up some meat!
Write a pargaraph.
You empty little set of Pom Poms.
SWAT!*

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 10, 2022)

_France, June 2021: The price of electricity is 0.209 U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and 0.142 U.S. Dollar for businesses which includes all components of the electricity bill such as the cost of power, distribution and taxes. For comparison, the average price of electricity in the world for that period is 0.137 U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and 0.125 U.S. Dollar for businesses. We calculate several data points at various levels of electricity consumption for both households and businesses but on the chart we show only two data points. For *households*, the displayed number is calculated at the average annual level of household electricity consumption. For *businesses*, the displayed data point uses 1,000,000 kWh annual consumption._

Electricity prices for households, June 2021
(kWh, U.S. Dollar)













						France electricity prices, March 2022 | GlobalPetrolPrices.com
					

France, March 2022: The price of electricity is  U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and  U.S. Dollar for businesses which includes all components of the electricity bill such as the cost of power, distribution and taxes.  For comparison, the average price of electricity in the world for that...




					www.globalpetrolprices.com
				




France, about 70% nuclear power,
Germany, about 13% (before they shut down half their nukes last week).

Which has cheaper electricity?


----------



## elektra (Jan 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.
> 
> 1. Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
> (I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
> ...


Let us see who can debate, who is the fool with a one digit IQ. We will start where you start, with Miami. If you can not substantiate your claims on Miami, it is obvious you know nothing outside a headline and your latest google search. Hence, if you can not provide any facts to counter what I present, which will be fact, you prove yourself the loud mouth unwittingly stupid fool.

Miami Floods? You do know much of Miami is a sand island, marsh, and everglades that has been filled in by man to make a city?

Miami Floods, you do know that Miami is sinking? Places that sink, will flood more.

Miami Floods, many of the streets are built below the mean high tide level. Of course they flood at high tides.

Southern Florida, which begins above Miami, is an Everglade, swamp, marshland, wetlands. Which has always flooded, from rain and storm surges from the ocean.

Highest point in all of florida is 345' above sea level

Miami, an island, built at sea level, is sinking, many streets built below the high tide mark, Miami has always flooded, has always suffered damage from the sea. Hurricanes and storm surges are the tales of hundreds of lost Spanish Galleons. To use Miami as evidence of your Climate Change Catastrophe is pure stupidity, despite the normal flooding , Miami stands relatively dry and a place people will inhabit, forever. Nobody is moving.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Its far more affordable than solar.  The only thing that makes nuclear expensive are the constant legal obstacles that turds like you are always putting up.


You are such a dumb fuck liar. I have posted this many times, and it is the unsubsidized price of electricity;












						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

elektra said:


> Let us see who can debate, who is the fool with a one digit IQ. We will start where you start, with Miami. If you can not substantiate your claims on Miami, it is obvious you know nothing outside a headline and your latest google search. Hence, if you can not provide any facts to counter what I present, which will be fact, you prove yourself the loud mouth unwittingly stupid fool.
> 
> Miami Floods? You do know much of Miami is a sand island, marsh, and everglades that has been filled in by man to make a city?
> 
> ...



Sea Level Rise projections​
For planning purposes, the county relies upon the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. By 2040, sea levels are expected to be 10 to 17 inches higher than 2000 levels.
Miami-Dade County's 3-D sea level rise viewer allows planners and residents to view buildings that could be affected by one foot to six feet of sea level rise.
Sea Level Rise and Flooding


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

elektra said:


> Uh, you are 100% wrong here. If as a home owner you install your own solar and batteries, you can not sell electricity to the grid.
> 
> If you are tied into the scheme where the utility is forced to pay above market value for your electricity, when there is a black-out, your system is shut down, for safety reasons, and it will not power your house by design
> 
> and you claim to know all about green energy, the fact is you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground.


LOL  And you continue to post silly lies. Here are the facts concerning utilities and VPP's. Very encouraging, one can be both a consumer and producer. 









						How AI and Software Are Transforming Virtual Power Plants - Energy Storage Association
					

This is a guest blog post from Stem, Inc., a Megawatt sponsor for #ESACon21. Connect with Stem at Virtual #ESACon21 where Tad Glauthier will speak about eMobility in Phoenix, AZ, [...]




					energystorage.org


----------



## abu afak (Jan 10, 2022)

elektra said:


> Let us see who can debate, who is the fool with a one digit IQ. We will start where you start, with Miami. If you can not substantiate your claims on Miami, it is obvious you know nothing outside a headline and your latest google search. Hence, if you can not provide any facts to counter what I present, which will be fact, you prove yourself the loud mouth unwittingly stupid fool.
> 
> Miami Floods? You do know much of Miami is a sand island, marsh, and everglades that has been filled in by man to make a city?
> 
> ...


LOL
You 'answered' HALF of Your numbers 1-4 that I answered with those numbers.
Miami Sea Level Of course, that's hardly the only place that it's a problem.
(see Old Rocks below on this well know and not singular problem. Many Citiies onj the East Coast are dealing wit it for it)

Second part of #1 I showed Our Military who acknowledges something that is already a problem and growing!

Then you WHIFFED on #2. How we know it's AGW and no the sun.
HUGE ISSUE
WHIFF-ARONI!

and you WHIFFED on my answer to your #3 and 4.

WHOA

Another ******* Wipe out.


You're TOTAL FRAUD, who just parrots RW talking points but knows and understands NOTHING.

`


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> You are such a dumb fuck liar. I have posted this many times, and it is the unsubsidized price of electricity;
> 
> View attachment 586349
> 
> ...


Why should anyone accept your chart as valid?  The source is "Lazard Estimates."  Who the fuck are they?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  And you continue to post silly lies. Here are the facts concerning utilities and VPP's. Very encouraging, one can be both a consumer and producer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


VPP - none existent power plant.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Why should anyone accept your chart as valid?  The source is "Lazard Estimates."  Who the fuck are they?


The people that the big and little corporations listen to.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> VPP - none existent power plant.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> The people that the big and little corporations listen to.


Prove it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 10, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


>


So  .  .  .  . nothing that could provide backup for solar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> So  .  .  .  . nothing that could provide backup for solar.


God man, you are hopelessly stupid. The batteries in the garage and the vehicles are the backup. Incredible how dense you are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Prove it.











						Businesses
					

We advise clients around the world on strategic and financial matters. We manage investment portfolios in key regions of the world




					www.lazard.com
				




Our Clients
They include *corporations, partnerships, institutions, governments, sovereign entities and individuals*. Our Asset Management business serves a diverse global client base that includes pensions, sovereign wealth funds, governments, corporations, financial institutions and high-net-worth individuals





__





						Lazard Ltd - Company Profile and News
					

Company profile page for Lazard Ltd including stock price, company news, press releases, executives, board members, and contact information




					www.bloomberg.com


----------



## Viacheslav (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear is the least affordable option to decarburization.



If we really want to achieve zero emissions, we have no choice. You cannot create a stable energy system based only on renewable sources (except for hydropower), even if we have found a way to store energy, say hydrogen there is still a huge obstacle this is the power factor.  Just look, the largest solar farm in the world, Bhadla Solar Park, has a capacity of 2.7 GW and an area of 160 km2, but the real generation is about 20%, and from this we need energy for current consumers, we need energy for generation, storage and transportation of hydrogen, the hydrogen fuel cell itself also has an efficiency of 60%. And in this way we will simply "fill" our entire territory with solar panels, wind generators, and still we will continue to burn coal. 

Have you watched the movie Don't look up?  As for me, you can find a hint of the current situation there. A dangerous comet is approaching Earth, scientists and engineers suggest a simple and working solution to prevent a catastrophe (like nuclear power in the context of decarbonization), but business wants more money, politicians want more hype and they end up rejecting a working solution.


----------



## Viacheslav (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> You are such a dumb fuck liar. I have posted this many times, and it is the unsubsidized price of electricity;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a "cunning" comparison, a nuclear power plant generates power 24/7/360 when the solar farm doesn't work at night, and also doesn't' have smooth generation even on a clear day. And now we see reality, the world burns more coal.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> LOL
> You 'answered' HALF of Your numbers 1-4 that I answered with those numbers.
> Miami Sea Level Of course, that's hardly the only place that it's a problem.
> (see Old Rocks below on this well know and not singular problem. Many Citiies onj the East Coast are dealing wit it for it)
> ...


Whiffed, you just lost your first example, son. I have much more on sea level rise being, normal.

You can't win your first point you make and you believe simply because you did a Google search your opinion is validated.

I also have something called a life. I don't waste my entire day rubbing your comments in your punk face.

And as you have seen before, your premature assumptions is just that, I more than answer your silly Google searches.

You already lost, Miami built at sea level and sinking, and your reply is, "but, but there are other better..."

Blah, blah, blah, so you reply is you only took the 1st Google link you thought confirmed your opinion?

Google is a proven partisan hack site.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Sea Level Rise projections​
> For planning purposes, the county relies upon the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. By 2040, sea levels are expected to be 10 to 17 inches higher than 2000 levels.
> Miami-Dade County's 3-D sea level rise viewer allows planners and residents to view buildings that could be affected by one foot to six feet of sea level rise.
> Sea Level Rise and Flooding


Projections. As stated your last projection failed now your answer is tomorrow, we promise.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  And you continue to post silly lies. Here are the facts concerning utilities and VPP's. Very encouraging, one can be both a consumer and producer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you again old crock. Once again you prove yourself wrong with your own source.

Your home solar that feeds into the grid does not power your house. Not even during an outage.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> You are such a dumb fuck liar. I have posted this many times, and it is the unsubsidized price of electricity.


Old Crock, how many times must I tell you, your links prove you wrong.



> Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 15.0) shows the continued cost-competitiveness of certain renewable energy technologies on a subsidized basis


The 1st paragraph states it is the subsidized cost.

Old Crock, you are stupid.


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2022)

elektra said:


> Old Crock, how many times must I tell you, your links prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> The 1st paragraph states it is the subsidized cost.
> ...


Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

elektra said:


> Whiffed, you just lost your first example, son. I have much more on sea level rise being, normal.
> 
> You can't win your first point you make and you believe simply because you did a Google search your opinion is validated.
> 
> ...


LOL.
You Only answered, if FAILED, about Miami, which like all other cities on the East coast has plans for dealing with Rising Sea Level, some implemented in many places already.

On the Military, I just used a piece of a OP of mine and also bumped the whole thread on the topic... One of many links and lots of discussion. Have at it.

*So you LOST ALL OF YOUR "#1"

And you didn't touch my rebuttal of YOUR #2, or  #3/#4. 
In # 2, I actually explained in my own words (not "google") why we know it IS AGW this time
That was beyond anything you could ever do and it shut up/down forever.*

All the rest is empty Mouthing
*You were absolutely CRUSHED on all 4 of YOUR numbers.*

What at a complete @ss kicking.
You were totally GUTTED on YOUR  numbered points "1, 2, 3, 4" never to be seen again.


`


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> LOL.
> You Only answered, if FAILED, about Miami, which like all other cities on the East coast has plans for dealing with Rising Sea Level, some implemented in many places already.
> 
> On the Military, I just used a piece of a OP of mine and also bumped the whole thread on the topic... One of many links and lots of discussion. Have at it.
> ...


1. Miami and the military
     Miami is a lost for you, Miami
     is not flooded nor under
     water. 

     The military, you posted an 
      Article about heat stress? 
      Nothing that we discussed

      Further the article is not
      Science, it is a woman
       using her family as 
       credentials.

_"My family is no stranger to the Armed Forces. As a matter of fact, more than 20 family members have served in the military, including my four brothers"_

You fail Abu dabba do


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.


You mean the hacks who are all on the government payroll?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

elektra said:


> 1. Miami and the military
> Miami is a lost for you, Miami
> is not flooded nor under
> water.
> ...


*Because Miami is not "under water" doesn't mean "I lost" you ldlot.
All I had to and did show was that they (and other East Coast Cities).. AND the Military ARE dealing with Rising Sea Levels.

You LOST COMPLETELY.  ( Your #1)

Which is ''better' than you did on the other 3 YOU numbered and were Refuted on, which were totally ignored and dropped. (YOUR #2, #3, #4)

You got Slaughtered you DISHONEST POS and can't own up
Now/again you're just last wording due to your 12 yr old ego.
You lost.

`*


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> LOL.
> 
> On the Military, I just used a piece of a OP of mine and also bumped the whole thread on the topic... One of many links and lots of discussion. Have at it.
> 
> *So you LOST ALL OF YOUR "#1"*


On the Military? 

You posted an Article about heat stress? Nothing to do with sea level rising.

You can't win the first argument you make, which is thee most important.

Rant and rave, abu dabba do


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
> 90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).


Hahaha, you lost with your navy heat stress bullshit. You lost not understanding Miami is sinking and always flooded. You also lose when you claim the sea level will rise 6 feet 100 years from now.

Now you think you can claim to know what all the scientist think?

All the scientists were never asked about if they believe in AGW. The idea that most scientists believe is the opinion of 3 or 4 researches who dictated the scientists believe without asking. The researches based their opinion of what others thought based on papers published according to their guidelines and criteria.

No scientist were asked, and only a small percentage of the overall papers were reviewed. 

Opinion of a few, stating what the majority thinks, based on what questions applied to some papers is not a consensus.

Abu dabba do, you lose again


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Because Miami is not "under water" doesn't mean "I lost" you ldlot.
> All I had to and did show was that they (and other East Coast Cities).. AND the Military ARE dealing with Rising Sea Levels.
> 
> You LOST COMPLETELY.  ( Your #1)
> ...


Nothing is ignored. You lost on Miami and the military, you are arguing the are dealing with sea level rise when Miami is dealing with a costal city, built below the high tide mark.

The navy, according to your link was dealing with heat stress, unrelated to the sea.

Your second link says the navy is worried about the future, based on worst case scenarios. The navy is not addressing sea level that risen. The navy has taken no physical action, reparing damage or preparing for the future.

A navy report you have not read, about the future, does not prove yesterday's predictions of today are true, when we can see those predictions did not come true.

You want to play a guessing game about the future?

You are a joke.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.


Proven is that 99% of scientist were never asked. It was always the opinion of researches as to what these people think. 

If you like, prove your opinion, we will all laugh as you fail.

Go ahead, you will have to post a study done by researchers, because that is all that exists. These scientists were never asked.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

elektra said:


> Proven is that 99% of scientist were never asked. It was always the opinion of researches as to what these people think.
> 
> If you like, prove your opinion, we will all laugh as you fail.
> 
> Go ahead, you will have to post a study done by researchers, because that is all that exists. These scientists were never asked.


Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
He Lost ALL OF THEM.

Let's add a few more he's moved on to.









						Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



[.......]
Opposing (the AGW consensus)​*Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,*[33]* no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.*[32][34]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. *They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]*


In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[138] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[139][140][141][142]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[143] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[144]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[145]



> It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.


A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[146]



> (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[147] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[148] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[149]




Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[151] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[152]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[153] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[154]
[...........]
[...........]

SQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
> He Lost ALL OF THEM.
> 
> Let's add a few more he's moved on to.
> ...



I moved on? You failed to explain how normal high tide flooding of streets built below high tide proves a prediction of global sea rise from 20 years ago.

Abu dabba do, then offers a woman's opinion derived from military family members, addressing heat stress?

Abu dabba do, then says the navy is addressing sea level rise and as proof, Abu dabba do cuts/pastes a Google search on navy worst case predictions 100 years from now? That is not proof the sea has risen or will rise, do to CO2.

I then address point 2, and Abu dabba do, dies not recognize or remember what his/her second point was?

2. The scientific consensus. You made the claim, you posted an opinion piece that only shows the scientists were never asked what their opinion is. Researches looked at abstracts of papers, papers we are not able to read. Based on what criteria did the researchers come to their opinion of what others think?

Post the studies, opinions of what studies say is much different and obscures the truth.

A study, not the abstract.

Nobody asked all, half, or a tenth of the scientists if the believe.

I want to see the questions the researchers applied to the abstracts.

You made the claim, prove it. Your link to an OP means you have zero facts.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Sea Level Rise projections​
> For planning purposes, the county relies upon the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. By 2040, sea levels are expected to be 10 to 17 inches higher than 2000 levels.
> Miami-Dade County's 3-D sea level rise viewer allows planners and residents to view buildings that could be affected by one foot to six feet of sea level rise.
> Sea Level Rise and Flooding


and that means what to the post you responded to?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  And you continue to post silly lies. Here are the facts concerning utilities and VPP's. Very encouraging, one can be both a consumer and producer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it's just not true.  Just isn't.  you continue to post bullshit as fact.  shame on you!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
> He Lost ALL OF THEM.
> 
> Let's add a few more he's moved on to.
> ...


ever provide that prediction that came true yet?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> LOL.
> You Only answered, if FAILED, about Miami, which like all other cities on the East coast has plans for dealing with Rising Sea Level, some implemented in many places already.
> 
> On the Military, I just used a piece of a OP of mine and also bumped the whole thread on the topic... One of many links and lots of discussion. Have at it.
> ...


post one prediction that has come true.  still waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.



Pre-1800 we were in the Little Ice Age......


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pre-1800 we were in the Little Ice Age......


Still don't understand why these warmers want us as eskimos.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Still don't understand why these warmers want us as eskimos.



Imagine the whiny little bitches if the glaciers were advancing.......


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

elektra said:


> I moved on? You failed to explain how normal high tide flooding of streets built below high tide proves a prediction of global sea rise from 20 years ago.
> 
> Abu dabba do, then offers a woman's opinion derived from military family members, addressing heat stress?
> 
> ...



LYING now.
The 4 ALL still gone.
*I absolutely did show with Miami (not the larger point Military bases) which were Not built that way... either.
And absolutely all the big cities on the East Coast, as well as Naval installations (our biggest Norfolk) Noticing the rise and preparing for more.*
You must like in Denver to be so dense.



elektra said:


> 2. The scientific consensus. You made the claim, you posted an opinion piece that only shows the scientists were never asked what their opinion is. Researches looked at abstracts of papers, papers we are not able to read. Based on what criteria did the researchers come to their opinion of what others think?
> 
> Post the studies, opinions of what studies say is much different and obscures the truth.
> 
> ...


That's not an opinion piece, that was Wikipedi, citong wioth Footnortes many paper on the issue, as ell as Everey Natl qan dInt Sci org on board with AGHW

Now you Just LIE
LIE
LIE
LIE

*YOU set the 1, 2, 3, 4. and got Beat on every point.
So then defaulted to just half of #1 in your reply to my Full 4 pt rebuttal.
YOU Dropped the numbers.
You just Dishonest and can't admit defeat.
Just a last-wording child who can't take a loss.*

`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

elektra said:


> Hey, dumb fucker, you disagreed with my post yet you are not man enough nor smart enough to actually respond to the facts I presented. I am just here rubbing it in your face and pointing out to everyone else, that you cant actually support your opinion with facts.
> 
> 1) all predictions of problems caused have not materialized. Zero proof that a warmer climate is bad.
> 
> ...


AGAIN above was Elektra's initial numbered 4 points I refuted in detail with same numbers. Then he went into BS non-number, last-word mode after just mentioning 'Miami.' *(not the other large cities or My Larger response with Military bases facing same.*
That's it. He Whiffed on all the meat. Dropped/Lost the 4 points.

OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.

*1.* Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
(I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
Sea Level issues already a problem in many places in the last few decades.
Miami Floods regularly now just on normal high tides.
Our Naval bases do too now.

US Military on the Front Lines of Extreme Heat​
US Military on the Front Lines of Extreme Heat​This analysis calculates the increase in dangerously hot days that 169 major US military installations would experience under three different climate scenarios.



www.ucsusa.org
Nov 11, 2019 · Updated Jan 24, 2020 to include new policy memo. Over the next three decades, *military* bases in the contiguous United States could average an extra month of dangerously-hot days each year when the heat index—or “feels like” temperature—exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis calculates the increase in dangerously hot days that the ...
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas | Union ...​The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas​Rising seas will increasingly flood many of our coastal military bases.



www.ucsusa.org
https://www.bing.com/search?q=militray front lines cliumate chaneg&pc=0MON&ptag=C24N191AB95782FAFE&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127#

*2.* PAST warming was caused, or at least started by the sun.
Not this Time.
Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).

*How do we/they know? They have looked at past warming cycles and they were caused by the the earths orbital position/increased solar radiation/"forcing."
That is Not true of this one.*
Usually that solar forcing sets loose the Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc) which dramatically increases the warming. This time however solar radiation has not increased but the trapping effect of the GHG's we have pumped at an unprecedented rate/speed into the atmo has.
Co2 has increased from 280 PPM in 1850 to over 400PPM now: the Industrial Revolution. Most of it the last 70 yrs.
Sci guys have measured the radiation-in: (stable), and radiation-out: (partly but increasingly blocked from reflecting back into space at the precise spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)

Also see my thread on this: containing the info above I encapsulated in part.
How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...
www.usmessageboard.com


*3/4.* Fallacious attempt
Solar and other renewables still use Fossils fuels to produce them but as they become a higher percentage of power generation they will; reproduce themselves.


*5.* In summary you posts are Pieces of sh*t, just repeating trite and wrong RW talking points.
You're just a loudmouth MAGAt.
*You aren't even debate material, but I graced your crap anyway.
Maybe you will finally start to post like you have a 3 digit IQ but I doubt it.

` - - - - - - - - *

And that's who it actually ended before he went into Deflection mode.
He is not remotely in the game.

*And Huge/Conspicuous: Not even mentioning my Devastating #2 (the biggest Issue), the reason we know the current warming IS AGW!*

`


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> AGAIN here was Elektra's initial numbered 4 poinmts I refuuted and then he went into BS non-number last-word mode.
> 
> OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.
> 
> ...


still looks like floating boats.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
> He Lost ALL OF THEM.
> 
> Let's add a few more he's moved on to.
> ...



I moved on? You failed to explain how normal high tide flooding of streets built below high tide proves a prediction of global sea rise from 20 years ago.

Abu dabba do, then offers a woman's opinion derived from military family members, addressing heat stress?

Abu dabba do, then says the navy is addressing sea level rise and as proof, Abu dabba do cuts/pastes a Google search on navy worst case predictions 100 years from now? That is not proof the sea has risen or will rise, do to CO2.

I then address


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

elektra said:


> I moved on? You failed to explain how normal high tide flooding of streets built below high tide proves a prediction of global sea rise from 20 years ago.
> 
> Abu dabba do, then offers a woman's opinion derived from military family members, addressing heat stress?
> 
> ...


You folded.
the exchange is now above in it's entirety for All to see.
I'm done with you now BOY.
Pull up your pants and go crying to your older sister.


EDIT:
Now you're going to see Below how I oft leave the losers.
Baying at the moon.
Multi-posting to make up for what they realize is inadequate.
`


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> LYING now.
> The 4 ALL still gone.
> I absolutely did show with Miami which was not built that way
> And abolutely all the big cities on the East Coast, as well as Naval installations (our biggest Norfolk)



Miami, many streets built below the high tide Mark is a fact..

Miami, built at sea level, on a sand island and as well as from swamps, marsh, wetlands, and or everglades that was filled in.

Miami, is not under water as was predicted.

Abu dabba do has posted nothing to prove the past prediction came true.

Abu dabba do has only posted sci-fi predictions of the future


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone


I have only addressed 2 points of 4. My comments in response to somebody else.

Abu dabba do. Can not get that much right yet he/she wants us to, "believe", right along with.

2. Once again, "survey says" is not Science. A review of abstracts against questions we don't get to see is not proof. Not asking any scientist their opinion proves you don't want their answer, you need to be able to lie about what they think.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You folded.
> the exchange is now above in it's entirety for All to see.
> I'm done with you now BOY.


and there you go. running from what you can't answer, I have yet to get to the last two points and Abu dabba do has run away.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.
> 
> 1. Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
> (I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
> ...


Hahahaha! I lose? On these two points? I am suppose to prove that has not happened can not happen? That is your claim to, "winning" on these two points.

You simply have to say, "this will happen in the future", and you win?

You got me there super genius.

But, what will replace propene in the production of fiberglass. Propene only comes from oil?

A spectacular failure on point three and four. Just when I figure nobody can be dumber than old crock and cricket, Abu dabba do easily proves he/she is thee dumbest.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> God man, you are hopelessly stupid. The batteries in the garage and the vehicles are the backup. Incredible how dense you are.


Tesla Powerwall costs $7800/unit.  I think you normally need two of them, so that's $15,600.  How many poor Democrat families can afford that?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 11, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Businesses
> 
> 
> We advise clients around the world on strategic and financial matters. We manage investment portfolios in key regions of the world
> ...


That didn't prove it, moron.


----------



## elektra (Jan 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.


Post the facts, just because you or someone else says so, it is true? 

You won't be able to post the study, if you come close missing from the study will be the questions and or parameters the "researchers" applied to an article or abstract of a paper.

What you post may be called a study but it will be missing all the crucial data that was used. 

Hell, you can not even begin to tell us how many scientists there are in the world.

99%, your claim, prove it, and a Google linked article dictating it so is not proof.

Post the study with all the data and papers used.


----------



## elektra (Jan 12, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  And you continue to post silly lies. Here are the facts concerning utilities and VPP's. Very encouraging, one can be both a consumer and producer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


@ abu afk

Old Crock, your link had nothing to do with what you stated, in which I replied to.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak , still waiting on that prediction that came true?  Old Rocks , still waiting from you as well, Crick , and from you


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> still looks like floating boats.


Such a lying little asshole you are. Many posts have pointed out the many predictions of scientists that have absolutely happened, from the opening of the Northwest Passage to extreme weather events. That you continue to lie about that does not change those predictions from already having happened. You are a worthless little troll, with nothing to contribute to this discussion but lies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2022)

elektra said:


> @ abu afk
> 
> Old Crock, your link had nothing to do with what you stated, in which I replied to.


You really are that fucking stupid. Yes, that article has everything to do with VPP's.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 12, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear is the least affordable option to decarburization.


Isn't solar nuclear?

What about the UNECE report that Nuclear is the lowest carbon electricity source





__





						UN finds nuclear is the lowest carbon electricity source - Nuclear Industry Association
					

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has found that nuclear has the: Lowest lifecycle carbon of all technologies Lowest land use of all low-carbon technologies Lowest mining and … Continued




					www.niauk.org


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Such a lying little asshole you are. Many posts have pointed out the many predictions of scientists that have absolutely happened, from the opening of the Northwest Passage to extreme weather events. That you continue to lie about that does not change those predictions from already having happened. You are a worthless little troll, with nothing to contribute to this discussion but lies.


you really didn't write that with a straight face did you?

boats in the Northwest Passage has always occurred.  YOu're really confused.  Name an actual prediction.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2022)

elektra said:


> Post the facts, just because you or someone else says so, it is true?
> 
> You won't be able to post the study, if you come close missing from the study will be the questions and or parameters the "researchers" applied to an article or abstract of a paper.
> 
> ...


Damn, but you are one stupid asshole even to make that challenge. Your depth of ignorance is truly abysmal. So, here we go;


Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True​James Lawrence Powell
*First Published *March 28, 2016 Research Article


https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616634958

Article information






Abstract​The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.





						SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
					

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.




					journals.sagepub.com
				




Abstract​The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook _et al_ (_Environ. Res. Lett_. *8* 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (_N_ = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 _Environ. Res. Lett._ *11* 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.




__





						ShieldSquare Captcha
					






					iopscience.iop.org


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> you really didn't write that with a straight face did you?
> 
> boats in the Northwest Passage has always occurred.  YOu're really confused.  Name an actual prediction.


Not at all. When replying to such a stupid little troll as you, you cannot help but laugh at the depths of stupidity displayed. Wind and solar are at present, and will continue to be in the foreseeable future, over 90% of new generation installed in the US. No, dumb ass, the first historical transit of the Northwest Passage was in 1903, in a beefed up herring fishing boat, and it took three years. In 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury cruise liner transitied the passage in less than 30 days.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Not at all. When replying to such a stupid little troll as you, you cannot help but laugh at the depths of stupidity displayed. Wind and solar are at present, and will continue to be in the foreseeable future, over 90% of new generation installed in the US. No, dumb ass, the first historical transit of the Northwest Passage was in 1903, in a beefed up herring fishing boat, and it took three years. In 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury cruise liner transitied the passage in less than 30 days.


you think boats never traversed the Northwest Passage in the past.  too fking funny.  Again, you have to be smiling when you write.

You know there were vikings on Greenland with trees, right?









						A Brief History of Greenland - Local Histories
					

By Tim Lambert The Inuit in Greenland The first inhabitants of Greenland were the Inuit. They lived in Greenland for long periods but there were also times when Greenland was uninhabited. The first people to live in Greenland were the Saqqaq people who lived there from about 2,500 BC to about...



					localhistories.org


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
> It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
> **** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
> THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
> ...


.

_"We spent twice as much to bring you energy that's going to cost you a whole lot more."_

.​


----------



## abu afak (Jan 12, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> _"We spent twice as much to bring you energy that's going to cost you a whole lot more."_
> 
> .​


Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`


----------



## elektra (Jan 12, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn, but you are one stupid asshole even to make that challenge. Your depth of ignorance is truly abysmal. So, here we go;
> 
> 
> Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True​James Lawrence Powell
> ...


As I stated, you will not produce the complete study

An abstract tells us nothing.

The first thing to note is the abstract does not state that any scientist was consulted.

It is the author's opinion according to a set of parameters applied to articles.

Partisan opinion of an author is not a consensus of scientist


----------



## elektra (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
> www.carbonbrief.org
> 
> ""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
> ...


This is already shown to be not what you think it is.

You have not read the document.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
> www.carbonbrief.org
> 
> ""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
> ...


.

I didn't say it cost a lot to produce.
I said it costs a lot to install and maintain and the end user's energy cost will go up forever.

You needn't try to argue because they already did it here.
I know what my bill was before, versus what it is now.

I am not even going to talk about the fact that the majority energy is produced two states away, which makes it unreliable.
But no worries ... I installed a whole house generator that runs off natural gas, for when the power company cannot hold up their end of our agreement.

.​


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 12, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Such a lying little asshole you are. Many posts have pointed out the many predictions of scientists that have absolutely happened, from the opening of the Northwest Passage to extreme weather events. That you continue to lie about that does not change those predictions from already having happened. You are a worthless little troll, with nothing to contribute to this discussion but lies.


What predictions are those?  I'm not aware of any that turned out to be accurate.  The so-called "Northwest Passage" is icebound 90% of the time.  No one is using it to ship freight.  The claim that weather events are supposedly more extreme has been shown to be false time after time after time.  Please demonstrate they are any more common or more extreme than in years past.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 12, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> I didn't say it cost a lot to produce.
> I said it costs a lot to install and maintain and the end user's energy cost will go up forever.
> ...


No.
First we are talking about Solar Plants in this case..
But even with home owners start to save the first day after installation and forever thereafter.
Monthly utility bills (Burning O&G forever) will obviously cost more than solar panels which only occasionally need a tweak.
Many people have posted their yearly savings, and can sell back days of excess to utilities.
`


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> No.
> First we are talking about Solar Plants in this case..
> But even with home owners start to save the first day after installation and forever thereafter.
> Monthly utility bills (Burning O&G forever) will obviously cost more than solar panels which only occasionally need a tweak.
> ...


.

You are lying ... It costs more now than it did before.

You are also trying to compare individuals investing in their own solar panels, versus power companies.
If you make the topic about 297 billion invested in Green Energy ... You are no longer talking about someone putting solar panels on their roof.

Your inability to grasp how flawed your approach is, only expresses more reason to ignore whatever you have to offer ... 

.​


----------



## abu afak (Jan 12, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> You are lying ... It costs more now than it did before.
> 
> ...


"I am lying"?
I have posted many links backing my position
You have posted NONE.

Put up or shut up you empty RW bag of shlt.

`


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "I am lying"?
> I have posted many links backing my position
> You have posted NONE.
> 
> ...


.

That's certainly not a compelling argument when I have clearly expressed how you don't even understand what you have posted.

.​


----------



## abu afak (Jan 12, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> That's certainly not a compelling argument when I have clearly expressed how you don't even understand what you have posted.
> 
> .​



Maybe you should learn how debate works
It can't just be "Yes-No-Yes"
When that happens one has to go to the links.
I did.
While you just sit on your empty opinion. "No."
Put up or shut up 12 IQ guy. 
`


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Maybe you should learn how debate works
> It can't just be "Yes-No-Yes"
> When that happens one has to go to the links.
> I did.
> ...


Post something factual then


----------



## elektra (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "I am lying"?
> I have posted many links backing my position
> You have posted NONE.
> 
> ...


a link does not prove you are right, you have not read those links, they state the opposite of what you believe


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Maybe you should learn how debate works
> It can't just be "Yes-No-Yes"
> When that happens one has to go to the links.
> I did.
> ...


.

It's obvious you don't know how.

Here's a link to where they re-define Green Energy to include Nuclear and Natural Gas, 
because their bullshit kept coming home to roost.

.​


----------



## elektra (Jan 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s *best solar power schemes*


what is a power scheme?

It is not free market capitalism

Solar Power Schemes are subsidized, ruled, and regulated by the government to be cheap.

Notice, this is a headline, nothing more, where is the actual price? Is it not disgusting that idiots read headlines and think they know Solar is cheap, simply because their google search returned a headline!


> That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2022)

Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## abu afak (Jan 12, 2022)

elektra said:


> what is a power scheme?
> 
> It is not free market capitalism
> 
> ...



"the actual price" (bogus detail fallacy) is dependent on each usage, be it Power generation, or other. DUH!
Under the good/best circumstance/"scheme", such as sunny countries/regions, Solar is now the cheapest.
In part because the cost of solar has dropped 85% in the last decade because of technological gains.

Also in the Era of 2% interest rates, the front-loaded cost of renewables has come down greatly.
The finance cost with a 2-3% interest rate down about 2/3... also in a decade.

Meanwhile the cost of Fossil fuels is Ongoing and Long term loaded as the need for O&G never stops... long after solar just needs minor maintenance. 
So front loaded costs now in good advantage, and why 92% of new Power generation capability in the first half of 2021 was Renewable.
(another linked thread of mine a bit further down)

So once again I have to explain the basics to you just as In did on 4 other points you couldn't answer, including How we know Current warming IS caused by Humans.

`


----------



## elektra (Jan 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "the actual price" (bogus detail fallacy) is dependent on each usage, be it Power generation, or other. DUH!
> Under the good/best circumstance/"scheme", such as sunny countries/regions, Solar is now the cheapest.
> In part because the cost of solar has dropped 85% in the last decade because of technological gains.
> 
> ...


Read your link, you have not. If you followed your link you find out like I did that there is nothing there about Solar except the headline.


----------



## elektra (Jan 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "the actual price" (bogus detail fallacy) is dependent on each usage, be it Power generation, or other. DUH!
> Under the good/best circumstance/"scheme", such as sunny countries/regions, Solar is now the cheapest.
> In part because the cost of solar has dropped 85% in the last decade because of technological gains.
> 
> ...


And again I point out that you have not read the articles or reports behind your links.

$100 trillion is the price tag to replace everything that is proven to work with green energy that has thus far completely failed.

Everyone's electric bill has gone up, and is predicted to go up more.

But that you ignore.


----------



## elektra (Jan 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.


Where is;

Crick, proof?
Abu Afk, proof?
Old crock, proof?

All 3 made this claim, nobody proves it is true. 

At best they find a headline that agrees, a press release, an abstract.

But never do we get proof, as in the study they have faith in.

A religion requires faith.


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2022)

How many times have you been told there ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences?  Do you not understand that?  Do you have any familiarity with actual science?

What you have received is an overwhelming amount of evidence.: Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies that come extremely close to unanimously concluding that the Earth is warming and that human GHG emissions are responsible for it.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> How many times have you been told there ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences?  Do you not understand that?  Do you have any familiarity with actual science?
> 
> What you have received is an overwhelming amount of evidence.: Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies that come extremely close to unanimously concluding that the Earth is warming and that human GHG emissions are responsible for it.


I've said it scores of times in the last week alone.
Science doesn't deal in proofs (math does), it deals in theories affirmed (and confirmed) over time.
And AGW has overwhelming acceptance of Scientists because of that continuing confirmation/observation without any serious contra view.

`


----------



## elektra (Jan 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> How many times have you been told there ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences?
> 
> What you have received is an overwhelming amount of Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies that come extremely close to unanimously concluding that the Earth is warming


Uh, proof? You are asserted that scientist agree. Finding out if two or three people, or more, agree is NOT SCIENCE. 

Asking scientists if they agree is NOT NATURAL SCIENCE.

And no, you have not posted thousands upon thousands of studies that prove the opinion you parrot. 

You have provided zero studies.

ZERO


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 15, 2022)

elektra said:


> Uh, proof? You are asserted that scientist agree. Finding out if two or three people, or more, agree is NOT SCIENCE.
> 
> Asking scientists if they agree is NOT NATURAL SCIENCE.
> 
> ...


What a fucked up liar you are. Yes, you have been provided many, many studies and observations by several posters here. You choose to ignore and lie about them continually. That is your character,


----------



## elektra (Jan 16, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> What a fucked up liar you are. Yes, you have been provided many, many studies and observations by several posters here. You choose to ignore and lie about them continually. That is your character,


Prove it old crock. I state that nobody has asked these scientists if they agree. You can not produce a list of scientists that said yes or no.

All you got is misleading statements based on secret studies of the titles of published papers. 

You will not ever post a complete study so that we can see the parameters applied to titles or abstracts.

You can't even show us a list of the titles.

Science, where is it? Even in replying you posted no study.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2022)

The predictable surprises will be delicious.


----------



## elektra (Jan 16, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I've said it scores of times in the last week alone.
> Science doesn't deal in proofs (math does), it deals in theories affirmed (and confirmed) over time.
> And AGW has overwhelming acceptance of Scientists because of that continuing confirmation/observation without any serious contra view.
> 
> `


Science does deal in proofs, most likely the reason you get so much wrong in the the environment threads is because you do not understand what a theory is. 

Science deals with many things, proofs are one.

Theories deal with proof, confirmed or not, it all simply depends on the subject.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 16, 2022)

elektra said:


> Hey, dumb fucker, you disagreed with my post yet you are not man enough nor smart enough to actually respond to the facts I presented. I am just here rubbing it in your face and pointing out to everyone else, that you cant actually support your opinion with facts.
> 
> 1) all predictions of problems caused have not materialized. Zero proof that a warmer climate is bad.
> 
> ...


Still waiting for answers you kept Whiffing on when I categorically RIPPED you a new one on your numbered (1-4) points.
Never to be seen again despite me splattering your 12 IQ brain all over the place.
I NEVER Let it go.
You can't move on to your next Loss Yet.
  -- - - - -
AGAIN
---------


OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.

1. Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
(I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
Sea Level issues already a problem in many places in the last few decades.
Miami Floods regularly now just on normal high tides.
Our Naval bases do too now.

US Military on the Front Lines of Extreme Heat​
US Military on the Front Lines of Extreme Heat​This analysis calculates the increase in dangerously hot days that 169 major US military installations would experience under three different climate scenarios.
www.ucsusa.org
Nov 11, 2019 · Updated Jan 24, 2020 to include new policy memo. Over the next three decades, *military* bases in the contiguous United States could average an extra month of dangerously-hot days each year when the heat index—or “feels like” temperature—exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis calculates the increase in dangerously hot days that the ...
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas | Union ...​
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas​Rising seas will increasingly flood many of our coastal military bases.
www.ucsusa.org
https://www.bing.com/search?q=militray front lines cliumate chaneg&pc=0MON&ptag=C24N191AB95782FAFE&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127#

2. PAST warming was caused, or at least started by the sun.
Not this Time.
Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).

*How do we/they know? They have looked at past warming cycles and they were caused by the the earths orbital position/increased solar radiation/"forcing."
That is Not true of this one.*
Usually that solar forcing sets loose the Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc) which dramatically increases the warming. This time however solar radiation has not increased but the trapping effect of the GHG's we have pumped at an unprecedented rate/speed into the atmo has.
Co2 has increased from 280 PPM in 1850 to over 400PPM now: the Industrial Revolution. Most of it the last 70 yrs.
Sci guys have measured the radiation-in: (stable), and radiation-out: (partly but increasingly blocked from reflecting back into space at the precise spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)

Also see my thread on this: containing the info above I encapsulated in part.
How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...
www.usmessageboard.com


3/4. Fallacious attempt
Solar and other renewables still use Fossils fuels to produce them but as they become a higher percentage of power generation they will; reproduce themselves.


5. In summary you posts are Pieces of sh*t, just repeating trite and wrong RW talking points.
You're just a loudmouth MAGAt.
*You aren't even debate material, but I graced your crap anyway.
Maybe you will finally start to post like you have a 3 digit IQ but I doubt it.*

 - - - -

You're finished.
Pull up your pants and leave.
You lost/whiffed on THEE most important issues of AGW
`


----------



## elektra (Jan 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "the actual price" (bogus detail fallacy) is dependent on each usage, be it Power generation, or other. DUH!
> Under the good/best circumstance/"scheme", such as sunny countries/regions, Solar is now the cheapest.
> In part because the cost of solar has dropped 85% in the last decade because of technological gains.
> 
> ...


This link does not show solar is the cheapest. It may have a headline that states that but the content does not show what you claim.

Why is it you refuse to actually quote and link to a relevant fact.

Show us where within this link, you can't do it.

You speak of whiffed.

You have not proven anything.


----------



## elektra (Jan 17, 2022)

Abu afak, you have proved nothing other than all you need is a headline.

You are a about the biggest liar in these threads. 

Seriously, if you don't admit you are a liar then you are simply to stupid to understand a headline is not a fact.

Any Moron can go to Google and copy headlines. As you prove perfectly.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 17, 2022)

elektra said:


> Hey, dumb fucker, you disagreed with my post yet you are not man enough nor smart enough to actually respond to the facts I presented. I am just here rubbing it in your face and pointing out to everyone else, that you cant actually support your opinion with facts.
> 
> 1) all predictions of problems caused have not materialized. Zero proof that a warmer climate is bad.
> 
> ...


*Still waiting for answers you kept Whiffing on when I categorically RIPPED you a new one on your numbered (1-4) points.*
Never to be seen again despite me splattering your 12 IQ brain all over the place.
*I NEVER Let it go.*
You can't move on to your next Loss Yet.
-- - - - -
AGAIN
---------


OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.

1. Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
(I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
Sea Level issues already a problem in many places in the last few decades.
Miami Floods regularly now just on normal high tides.
Our Naval bases do too now.

US Military on the Front Lines of Extreme Heat​US Military on the Front Lines of Extreme Heat​This analysis calculates the increase in dangerously hot days that 169 major US military installations would experience under three different climate scenarios.
www.ucsusa.org
Nov 11, 2019 · Updated Jan 24, 2020 to include new policy memo. Over the next three decades, *military* bases in the contiguous United States could average an extra month of dangerously-hot days each year when the heat index—or “feels like” temperature—exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis calculates the increase in dangerously hot days that the ...
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas | Union ...​The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas​Rising seas will increasingly flood many of our coastal military bases.
www.ucsusa.org
https://www.bing.com/search?q=militray front lines cliumate chaneg&pc=0MON&ptag=C24N191AB95782FAFE&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127#

2. PAST warming was caused, or at least started by the sun.
Not this Time.
Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).

*How do we/they know? They have looked at past warming cycles and they were caused by the the earths orbital position/increased solar radiation/"forcing."
That is Not true of this one.*
Usually that solar forcing sets loose the Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc) which dramatically increases the warming. This time however solar radiation has not increased but the trapping effect of the GHG's we have pumped at an unprecedented rate/speed into the atmo has.
Co2 has increased from 280 PPM in 1850 to over 400PPM now: the Industrial Revolution. Most of it the last 70 yrs.
Sci guys have measured the radiation-in: (stable), and radiation-out: (partly but increasingly blocked from reflecting back into space at the precise spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)

Also see my thread on this: containing the info above I encapsulated in part.
How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...
www.usmessageboard.com


3/4. Fallacious attempt
Solar and other renewables still use Fossils fuels to produce them but as they become a higher percentage of power generation they will; reproduce themselves.


5. In summary you posts are Pieces of sh*t, just repeating trite and wrong RW talking points.
You're just a loudmouth MAGAt.
*You aren't even debate material, but I graced your crap anyway.
Maybe you will finally start to post like you have a 3 digit IQ but I doubt it.*

- - - -

*You're finished.*
Pull up your pants and leave.
*You lost/whiffed on THEE most important issues of AGW.*

`


----------



## elektra (Jan 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Still waiting for answers you kept Whiffing on when I categorically RIPPED you a new one on your numbered (1-4) points.*
> Never to be seen again despite me splattering your 12 IQ brain all over the place.
> *I NEVER Let it go.*
> You can't move on to your next Loss Yet.
> ...


I gave you the answers. You ignored them and proclaimed yourself as the ass-whiffer


----------



## elektra (Jan 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> 3/4. Fallacious attempt
> Solar and other renewables still use Fossils fuels to produce them but as they become a higher percentage of power generation they will; reproduce themselves.
> 
> *You lost/whiffed on THEE most important issues of AGW.*



Hoe does a higher percentage of renewables eliminate fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are not used to create the electricity needed. You obviously do not know anything beyond the headlines.

How do renewables replace all the chemicals and gases used? How do renewables replace the carbon needed?

Whiff some fresh air dumb ass and tell us how your dream come true.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 26, 2022)

elektra said:


> Hoe does a higher percentage of renewables eliminate fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are not used to create the electricity needed. You obviously do not know anything beyond the headlines.
> 
> How do renewables replace all the chemicals and gases used? How do renewables replace the carbon needed?
> 
> Whiff some fresh air dumb ass and tell us how your dream come true.


A higher percent of Renewables will not 'eliminate' Fossil Fuels. It could gget rid of the majority of them/their usage though.
Thus the OP..
AND did you miss my:
*










						Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021
					

Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021 [...]"...data recently released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)...  FERC’s latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




``*


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

*Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA*

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA*
> 
> Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
> www.carbonbrief.org
> ...


That's without battery back up, right?  The cost would be at least double with it.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

ding said:


> That's without battery back up, right?  The cost would be at least double with it.


That's seven posts in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.

You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That's seven posts nd six words you Obsessively STALKED.
> I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.
> 
> You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
> `


Keeping you honest is a full time job.  I usually don't need more than a sentence or two to do it.  

That link you posted.... That's without battery back up, right? The cost would be at least double with it, right?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Keeping you honest is a full time job.  I usually don't need more than a sentence or two to do it.
> 
> That link you posted.... That's without battery back up, right? The cost would be at least double with it, right?


That's eight posts/Trolls in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.

You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That's eight posts/Trolls in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
> I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.
> 
> You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
> `


Why won't you answer my question?

That link you posted.... That's without battery back up, right? The cost would be at least double with it, right?


----------



## elektra (Feb 22, 2022)

Global investment in solar and wind outshine all other investments in any other source of electricity.

And the morons celebrate. The investments outshine, or are greater, because solar and wind are extremely expensive. 

Idiots celebrating the expense


----------



## abu afak (Mar 6, 2022)

elektra said:


> Global investment in solar and wind outshine all other investments in any other source of electricity.
> 
> And the morons celebrate. The investments outshine, or are greater, because solar and wind are extremely expensive.
> 
> Idiots celebrating the expense


Obviously False.
It's now the cheapest in most plans it used in.
texas was#1 in 2021 in adding New Renewable capacity
OF 92% of capacity last year that Was renewable, not fossil.

`


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Obviously False.
> It's now the cheapest in most plans it used in.
> texas was#1 in 2021 in adding New Renewable capacity
> OF 92% of capacity last year that Was renewable, not fossil.
> ...


They need to recalculate after adding in storage.  It's not an apples to apples comparison until they can base-load like fossil fuels.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 23, 2022)

*elektra said:*
I see no link in response to my post.​You make big claims with zero proof.​And again, quit trolling. You just had another chance to refute what I say but as always you do not.​
See this?
*elektra get electrocuted.*
He blatantly makes false claims and Lies.
`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 23, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *elektra said:*
> I see no link in response to my post.​You make big claims with zero proof.​And again, quit trolling. You just had another chance to refute what I say but as always you do not.​
> See this?
> *elektra get electrocuted.*
> ...


No link


----------

