# How much can renewable energy save us?



## Old Rocks

*Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
_By Mike O’Boyle_

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

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

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

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

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

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







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






Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

*Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*


----------



## DGS49

My bullshit meter is nearing the red zone.  Look at the sources of information - advocacy groups.  Solar and wind continue to be - for most of the country - merely novelties, dribbling electrons into a grid that barely notices.  And the grid is powered by burning fossil fuels.

Shortly after we discover technology that makes us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, leave it to the Leftists to contrive reasons why natural gas is "bad."  It is so fucking predictable.


----------



## Death Angel

I'm a huge fan of solar, but coal and gas and oil will always have a place.

Foibe electric with our automobiles will be a huge mistake. Hydrogen would be a much better choice.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wind in reality produces less than 25% of its nominal rated output

so you have to multiply the cost of wind by at least 4 to get real costs

solar is fine but it only works during the day and is really only efficient at the more southern latitudes

we need point of use small nuclear reactors that put out 85-90 plus % of their rated output 24/7/365


----------



## fncceo

Old Rocks said:


> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources




You forgot to add -- when available.  Wind and Solar don't supply energy on demand.  Our consumption of energy is, by definition, on demand.  There is no technology available to store the energy produced by wind and solar for use on demand.  

Add to that, the price point on wind and solar you're quoting doesn't include huge subsidies provided by the taxpayers -- add that the the cost and then we're comparing apples with a different species of apples and not pomegranates.


----------



## Iceweasel

Let us know when the wet dream becomes a reality. I doubt it ever will. I think energy will be powered by harnessing atoms in one way or another. Now that's renewable energy.


----------



## danielpalos

Fusion (an energy with a future) could make this, academic.  Since, advances in technologies will enable new solutions.


----------



## saveliberty

Not enough wind or sunlight to make either viable in our area of Michigan.  Did not check, but do those figures include the taxes on nonrenewable fuels?  Credits for renewables?  Oh, yes they do.  Fake news strikes again.

From the article's source:

The cost of generating energy from solar photovoltaic (PV) technology continues to decline: The median levelized cost of energy from utility-scale PV technologies is down approximately 11% from last year, and rooftop residential PV technology is down about 26%, although the latter is still not cost competitive without significant subsidies and other policy support.


----------



## Old Rocks

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

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

*Of course, those whose political beliefs outweigh reason, the words above mean nothing. Solar and wind are winning on all fronts.*


----------



## saveliberty

Old Rocks said:


> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Of course, those whose political beliefs outweigh reason, the words above mean nothing. Solar and wind are winning on all fronts.*



Read your own article snowflake.  It says nothing of the sort.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan*

*A new paradigm*
Transitioning our electricity sector away from fossil fuels is no longer just an environmental imperative, it’s an economic one. Free markets now favor solar and wind — look no further than gas-rich Texas for evidence. Texas has more than three times more wind capacity than any other state, and solar is expected to grow 400 percent by 2022.

Outdated policies leave us unprepared to take full advantage of the rapid cost declines we’re seeing in the wind and solar industry. The time is now to radically adjust for a paradigm where wind and solar form the backbone of our electricity grid.

*LOL, That Goddamned hyper liberal Texas is at it again.*


----------



## Old Rocks

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Of course, those whose political beliefs outweigh reason, the words above mean nothing. Solar and wind are winning on all fronts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own article snowflake.  It says nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

Either you did not, or are incapable of understanding what the article says.


----------



## saveliberty

Old Rocks said:


> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan*
> 
> *A new paradigm*
> Transitioning our electricity sector away from fossil fuels is no longer just an environmental imperative, it’s an economic one. Free markets now favor solar and wind — look no further than gas-rich Texas for evidence. Texas has more than three times more wind capacity than any other state, and solar is expected to grow 400 percent by 2022.
> 
> Outdated policies leave us unprepared to take full advantage of the rapid cost declines we’re seeing in the wind and solar industry. The time is now to radically adjust for a paradigm where wind and solar form the backbone of our electricity grid.
> 
> *LOL, That Goddamned hyper liberal Texas is at it again.*



Actually the article says growth in solar or wind power efficiencies is slowing, but don't let that get in the way of your pipe dream.


----------



## saveliberty

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Of course, those whose political beliefs outweigh reason, the words above mean nothing. Solar and wind are winning on all fronts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own article snowflake.  It says nothing of the sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you did not, or are incapable of understanding what the article says.
Click to expand...


It clearly states that the subsidies make it cheaper, not actual cost of production.  Further it uses the taxes on other fuels figured into those fuels which inflate the actual cost of production there.  You are woefully ignorant.


----------



## saveliberty

Any idiot that doesn't read the supporting source documents referenced in an article needs to stop posting.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*



Will save us approximately nothing in the long run. Because for every GWatt of Wind/Solar you need to build or have a GWatt of RELIABLE power backup.. And a lot of Homer Simpsons eating doughnuts at the Nat Gas plant while the wind blows for 20 minutes.. .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*



Cheap energy? Tax the shit out of it!!!

Gotta pay back all the wasted subsidies Obama spent.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy? Tax the shit out of it!!!
> 
> Gotta pay back all the wasted subsidies Obama spent.
Click to expand...

we don't mind indulging the right wing fantasy of lower taxes for sustainable energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy? Tax the shit out of it!!!
> 
> Gotta pay back all the wasted subsidies Obama spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't mind indulging the right wing fantasy of lower taxes for sustainable energy.
Click to expand...


Cutting corporate taxes will only help "green" energy if it's profitable.
Cutting subsidies and mandates means it's mostly unprofitable.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy? Tax the shit out of it!!!
> 
> Gotta pay back all the wasted subsidies Obama spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't mind indulging the right wing fantasy of lower taxes for sustainable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting corporate taxes will only help "green" energy if it's profitable.
> Cutting subsidies and mandates means it's mostly unprofitable.
Click to expand...

are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?  

what about tasking academia with finding Perfect Knowledge of sustainable energies; and simply providing that knowledge to the private sector?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy? Tax the shit out of it!!!
> 
> Gotta pay back all the wasted subsidies Obama spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't mind indulging the right wing fantasy of lower taxes for sustainable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting corporate taxes will only help "green" energy if it's profitable.
> Cutting subsidies and mandates means it's mostly unprofitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?
> 
> what about tasking academia with finding Perfect Knowledge of sustainable energies; and simply providing that knowledge to the private sector?
Click to expand...

*
are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?* 

Patents aren't welfare, obviously.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy? Tax the shit out of it!!!
> 
> Gotta pay back all the wasted subsidies Obama spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't mind indulging the right wing fantasy of lower taxes for sustainable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting corporate taxes will only help "green" energy if it's profitable.
> Cutting subsidies and mandates means it's mostly unprofitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?
> 
> what about tasking academia with finding Perfect Knowledge of sustainable energies; and simply providing that knowledge to the private sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?*
> 
> Patents aren't welfare, obviously.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a form of subsidy; you would call it welfare if it were for the poor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy? Tax the shit out of it!!!
> 
> Gotta pay back all the wasted subsidies Obama spent.
> 
> 
> 
> we don't mind indulging the right wing fantasy of lower taxes for sustainable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting corporate taxes will only help "green" energy if it's profitable.
> Cutting subsidies and mandates means it's mostly unprofitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?
> 
> what about tasking academia with finding Perfect Knowledge of sustainable energies; and simply providing that knowledge to the private sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?*
> 
> Patents aren't welfare, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is a form of subsidy; you would call it welfare if it were for the poor.
Click to expand...


Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

Nope. Obviously.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we don't mind indulging the right wing fantasy of lower taxes for sustainable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting corporate taxes will only help "green" energy if it's profitable.
> Cutting subsidies and mandates means it's mostly unprofitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?
> 
> what about tasking academia with finding Perfect Knowledge of sustainable energies; and simply providing that knowledge to the private sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?*
> 
> Patents aren't welfare, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is a form of subsidy; you would call it welfare if it were for the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
Click to expand...

only in fantastical, right wing, special pleading.

_To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
_
You subsidize what you want more of.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting corporate taxes will only help "green" energy if it's profitable.
> Cutting subsidies and mandates means it's mostly unprofitable.
> 
> 
> 
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?
> 
> what about tasking academia with finding Perfect Knowledge of sustainable energies; and simply providing that knowledge to the private sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?*
> 
> Patents aren't welfare, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is a form of subsidy; you would call it welfare if it were for the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in fantastical, right wing, special pleading.
> 
> _To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> _
> You subsidize what you want more of.
Click to expand...

_
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_

Yup. We want more progress.

*You subsidize what you want more of.*

Like your idea to pay everyone unemployment benefits? Yeah, that would be stupid.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?
> 
> what about tasking academia with finding Perfect Knowledge of sustainable energies; and simply providing that knowledge to the private sector?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?*
> 
> Patents aren't welfare, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is a form of subsidy; you would call it welfare if it were for the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in fantastical, right wing, special pleading.
> 
> _To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> _
> You subsidize what you want more of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> Yup. We want more progress.
> 
> *You subsidize what you want more of.*
> 
> Like your idea to pay everyone unemployment benefits? Yeah, that would be stupid.
Click to expand...

everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation if they can earn a market friendly wage.  only fools and horses, should have to work in our _fine_, First World economy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *are you claiming our patent laws are enough welfare for capitalists?*
> 
> Patents aren't welfare, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a form of subsidy; you would call it welfare if it were for the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in fantastical, right wing, special pleading.
> 
> _To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> _
> You subsidize what you want more of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> Yup. We want more progress.
> 
> *You subsidize what you want more of.*
> 
> Like your idea to pay everyone unemployment benefits? Yeah, that would be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation if they can earn a market friendly wage.  only fools and horses, should have to work in our _fine_, First World economy.
Click to expand...


*everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation*

If you subsidize unemployment, you'll get more of it.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a form of subsidy; you would call it welfare if it were for the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in fantastical, right wing, special pleading.
> 
> _To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> _
> You subsidize what you want more of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> Yup. We want more progress.
> 
> *You subsidize what you want more of.*
> 
> Like your idea to pay everyone unemployment benefits? Yeah, that would be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation if they can earn a market friendly wage.  only fools and horses, should have to work in our _fine_, First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation*
> 
> If you subsidize unemployment, you'll get more of it.
Click to expand...

your point?  this is economics.  

we want more capital to circulate more consistently under our form of capitalism, even if it takes socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual. 

no fishing or work ethic required.  however, we should make fun of the poor for staying and complaining about being poor, on an at-will basis.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> only in fantastical, right wing, special pleading.
> 
> _To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> _
> You subsidize what you want more of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> Yup. We want more progress.
> 
> *You subsidize what you want more of.*
> 
> Like your idea to pay everyone unemployment benefits? Yeah, that would be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation if they can earn a market friendly wage.  only fools and horses, should have to work in our _fine_, First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation*
> 
> If you subsidize unemployment, you'll get more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  this is economics.
> 
> we want more capital to circulate more consistently under our form of capitalism, even if it takes socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> no fishing or work ethic required.  however, we should make fun of the poor for staying and complaining about being poor, on an at-will basis.
Click to expand...


*your point? this is economics.*

Subsidies was your point.

*we want more capital to circulate more consistently under our form of capitalism*

No we don't. Handing cash to slackers for not working, just because they decided to not work, is not helpful.

*even if it takes socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.*

I love how socialism bailed out capitalism in Venezuela.
*
we should make fun of the poor for staying and complaining about being poor, on an at-will basis.
*
No, but I'll just continue to make fun of ignorant liberals and their ignorant ideas.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in fantastical, right wing, special pleading.
> 
> _To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> _
> You subsidize what you want more of.
> 
> 
> 
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> Yup. We want more progress.
> 
> *You subsidize what you want more of.*
> 
> Like your idea to pay everyone unemployment benefits? Yeah, that would be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation if they can earn a market friendly wage.  only fools and horses, should have to work in our _fine_, First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation*
> 
> If you subsidize unemployment, you'll get more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  this is economics.
> 
> we want more capital to circulate more consistently under our form of capitalism, even if it takes socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> no fishing or work ethic required.  however, we should make fun of the poor for staying and complaining about being poor, on an at-will basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *your point? this is economics.*
> 
> Subsidies was your point.
> 
> *we want more capital to circulate more consistently under our form of capitalism*
> 
> No we don't. Handing cash to slackers for not working, just because they decided to not work, is not helpful.
> 
> *even if it takes socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.*
> 
> I love how socialism bailed out capitalism in Venezuela.
> *
> we should make fun of the poor for staying and complaining about being poor, on an at-will basis.
> *
> No, but I'll just continue to make fun of ignorant liberals and their ignorant ideas.
Click to expand...

a subsidy is an economic concept.

Yes, we do.  full employment of (capital) resources should be a benchmark Standard, not any form of moral of "badwill toward men".

lousy management.  the US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World; our rich can get bailed out with means tested corporate welfare and still keep their multimillion dollar bonuses and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

is it any wonder, no one takes the fantastical and morally subjective, right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> Yup. We want more progress.
> 
> *You subsidize what you want more of.*
> 
> Like your idea to pay everyone unemployment benefits? Yeah, that would be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation if they can earn a market friendly wage.  only fools and horses, should have to work in our _fine_, First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *everyone doesn't want unemployment compensation*
> 
> If you subsidize unemployment, you'll get more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  this is economics.
> 
> we want more capital to circulate more consistently under our form of capitalism, even if it takes socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> no fishing or work ethic required.  however, we should make fun of the poor for staying and complaining about being poor, on an at-will basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *your point? this is economics.*
> 
> Subsidies was your point.
> 
> *we want more capital to circulate more consistently under our form of capitalism*
> 
> No we don't. Handing cash to slackers for not working, just because they decided to not work, is not helpful.
> 
> *even if it takes socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.*
> 
> I love how socialism bailed out capitalism in Venezuela.
> *
> we should make fun of the poor for staying and complaining about being poor, on an at-will basis.
> *
> No, but I'll just continue to make fun of ignorant liberals and their ignorant ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a subsidy is an economic concept.
> 
> Yes, we do.  full employment of (capital) resources should be a benchmark Standard, not any form of moral of "badwill toward men".
> 
> lousy management.  the US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World; our rich can get bailed out with means tested corporate welfare and still keep their multimillion dollar bonuses and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.
> 
> is it any wonder, no one takes the fantastical and morally subjective, right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...


*a subsidy is an economic concept.*

A patent is not a subsidy, handing unemployment checks to people who quit, is a subsidy for quitting.

*full employment of (capital) resources should be a benchmark Standard*

Employing resources toward increased production is good.
Employing resources toward unproductive slackers is bad.

*lousy management.* 

Socialism is lousy economics.


----------



## danielpalos

both are a form of subsidy.  our Founding Fathers even explained the rationale for that subsidy.

capital has to circulate, not your personal and subjective, value of morals. 

we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.  thus, no real work ethic required.  it is merely a convenience, for the sake of taxation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> both are a form of subsidy.  our Founding Fathers even explained the rationale for that subsidy.
> 
> capital has to circulate, not your personal and subjective, value of morals.
> 
> we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.  thus, no real work ethic required.  it is merely a convenience, for the sake of taxation.



*both are a form of subsidy*

_Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
_
How does a patent equal government money handed to the patent holder?
How does a patent keep the price of a commodity or service low or competitive?

*capital has to circulate*

If you want to have capital that you can circulate, you should earn it.

*not your personal and subjective, value of morals*

I'm not against idiotically subsidizing unemployment because it's immoral,
I'm against it because it's bad economics.

*we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.* 

OMG. You're a moron.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> both are a form of subsidy.  our Founding Fathers even explained the rationale for that subsidy.
> 
> capital has to circulate, not your personal and subjective, value of morals.
> 
> we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.  thus, no real work ethic required.  it is merely a convenience, for the sake of taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *both are a form of subsidy*
> 
> _Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> _
> How does a patent equal government money handed to the patent holder?
> How does a patent keep the price of a commodity or service low or competitive?
> 
> *capital has to circulate*
> 
> If you want to have capital that you can circulate, you should earn it.
> 
> *not your personal and subjective, value of morals*
> 
> I'm not against idiotically subsidizing unemployment because it's immoral,
> I'm against it because it's bad economics.
> 
> *we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.*
> 
> OMG. You're a moron.
Click to expand...

The socialism of the law.
_
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_

A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.

patents may or may not be cost competitive; but, a legal monopoly ensures capital can be generated.

the subjective value of morals has no bearing on the science of economics.  full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about, since we can never compete with merely, cheap labor.

ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.  how is that bad for any private sector?

fiat money can be printed at an official Mint, almost as if by magic.  its use, is as a medium of exchange.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> both are a form of subsidy.  our Founding Fathers even explained the rationale for that subsidy.
> 
> capital has to circulate, not your personal and subjective, value of morals.
> 
> we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.  thus, no real work ethic required.  it is merely a convenience, for the sake of taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *both are a form of subsidy*
> 
> _Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> _
> How does a patent equal government money handed to the patent holder?
> How does a patent keep the price of a commodity or service low or competitive?
> 
> *capital has to circulate*
> 
> If you want to have capital that you can circulate, you should earn it.
> 
> *not your personal and subjective, value of morals*
> 
> I'm not against idiotically subsidizing unemployment because it's immoral,
> I'm against it because it's bad economics.
> 
> *we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.*
> 
> OMG. You're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The socialism of the law.
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.
> 
> patents may or may not be cost competitive; but, a legal monopoly ensures capital can be generated.
> 
> the subjective value of morals has no bearing on the science of economics.  full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about, since we can never compete with merely, cheap labor.
> 
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.  how is that bad for any private sector?
> 
> fiat money can be printed at an official Mint, almost as if by magic.  its use, is as a medium of exchange.
Click to expand...


*A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.*

A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.

*full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,*

Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.
*
ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.*

Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> both are a form of subsidy.  our Founding Fathers even explained the rationale for that subsidy.
> 
> capital has to circulate, not your personal and subjective, value of morals.
> 
> we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.  thus, no real work ethic required.  it is merely a convenience, for the sake of taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *both are a form of subsidy*
> 
> _Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> _
> How does a patent equal government money handed to the patent holder?
> How does a patent keep the price of a commodity or service low or competitive?
> 
> *capital has to circulate*
> 
> If you want to have capital that you can circulate, you should earn it.
> 
> *not your personal and subjective, value of morals*
> 
> I'm not against idiotically subsidizing unemployment because it's immoral,
> I'm against it because it's bad economics.
> 
> *we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.*
> 
> OMG. You're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The socialism of the law.
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.
> 
> patents may or may not be cost competitive; but, a legal monopoly ensures capital can be generated.
> 
> the subjective value of morals has no bearing on the science of economics.  full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about, since we can never compete with merely, cheap labor.
> 
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.  how is that bad for any private sector?
> 
> fiat money can be printed at an official Mint, almost as if by magic.  its use, is as a medium of exchange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.*
> 
> A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.
> 
> *full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,*
> 
> Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.
> *
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.*
> 
> Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.
Click to expand...

Nobody said they did.  the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

Yes, it is.  And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> both are a form of subsidy.  our Founding Fathers even explained the rationale for that subsidy.
> 
> capital has to circulate, not your personal and subjective, value of morals.
> 
> we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.  thus, no real work ethic required.  it is merely a convenience, for the sake of taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *both are a form of subsidy*
> 
> _Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> _
> How does a patent equal government money handed to the patent holder?
> How does a patent keep the price of a commodity or service low or competitive?
> 
> *capital has to circulate*
> 
> If you want to have capital that you can circulate, you should earn it.
> 
> *not your personal and subjective, value of morals*
> 
> I'm not against idiotically subsidizing unemployment because it's immoral,
> I'm against it because it's bad economics.
> 
> *we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.*
> 
> OMG. You're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The socialism of the law.
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.
> 
> patents may or may not be cost competitive; but, a legal monopoly ensures capital can be generated.
> 
> the subjective value of morals has no bearing on the science of economics.  full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about, since we can never compete with merely, cheap labor.
> 
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.  how is that bad for any private sector?
> 
> fiat money can be printed at an official Mint, almost as if by magic.  its use, is as a medium of exchange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.*
> 
> A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.
> 
> *full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,*
> 
> Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.
> *
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.*
> 
> Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody said they did.  the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> Yes, it is.  And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.
Click to expand...


*Nobody said they did.*

Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.

*Yes, it is.*

Prove it.


----------



## yiostheoy

Old Rocks said:


> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*


Hydroelectric is the only true renewable energy.

The Sun renews it by evaporating seawater and causing storms that rain in the mountains.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> both are a form of subsidy.  our Founding Fathers even explained the rationale for that subsidy.
> 
> capital has to circulate, not your personal and subjective, value of morals.
> 
> we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.  thus, no real work ethic required.  it is merely a convenience, for the sake of taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *both are a form of subsidy*
> 
> _Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> _
> How does a patent equal government money handed to the patent holder?
> How does a patent keep the price of a commodity or service low or competitive?
> 
> *capital has to circulate*
> 
> If you want to have capital that you can circulate, you should earn it.
> 
> *not your personal and subjective, value of morals*
> 
> I'm not against idiotically subsidizing unemployment because it's immoral,
> I'm against it because it's bad economics.
> 
> *we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.*
> 
> OMG. You're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The socialism of the law.
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.
> 
> patents may or may not be cost competitive; but, a legal monopoly ensures capital can be generated.
> 
> the subjective value of morals has no bearing on the science of economics.  full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about, since we can never compete with merely, cheap labor.
> 
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.  how is that bad for any private sector?
> 
> fiat money can be printed at an official Mint, almost as if by magic.  its use, is as a medium of exchange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.*
> 
> A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.
> 
> *full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,*
> 
> Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.
> *
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.*
> 
> Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody said they did.  the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> Yes, it is.  And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody said they did.*
> 
> Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.
> 
> *Yes, it is.*
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

And,



> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *both are a form of subsidy*
> 
> _Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> _
> How does a patent equal government money handed to the patent holder?
> How does a patent keep the price of a commodity or service low or competitive?
> 
> *capital has to circulate*
> 
> If you want to have capital that you can circulate, you should earn it.
> 
> *not your personal and subjective, value of morals*
> 
> I'm not against idiotically subsidizing unemployment because it's immoral,
> I'm against it because it's bad economics.
> 
> *we are discussing fiat money.  it has no real value.*
> 
> OMG. You're a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The socialism of the law.
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.
> 
> patents may or may not be cost competitive; but, a legal monopoly ensures capital can be generated.
> 
> the subjective value of morals has no bearing on the science of economics.  full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about, since we can never compete with merely, cheap labor.
> 
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.  how is that bad for any private sector?
> 
> fiat money can be printed at an official Mint, almost as if by magic.  its use, is as a medium of exchange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.*
> 
> A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.
> 
> *full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,*
> 
> Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.
> *
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.*
> 
> Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody said they did.  the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> Yes, it is.  And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody said they did.*
> 
> Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.
> 
> *Yes, it is.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> And,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The socialism of the law.
> _
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:_
> 
> A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.
> 
> patents may or may not be cost competitive; but, a legal monopoly ensures capital can be generated.
> 
> the subjective value of morals has no bearing on the science of economics.  full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about, since we can never compete with merely, cheap labor.
> 
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.  how is that bad for any private sector?
> 
> fiat money can be printed at an official Mint, almost as if by magic.  its use, is as a medium of exchange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.*
> 
> A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.
> 
> *full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,*
> 
> Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.
> *
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.*
> 
> Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody said they did.  the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> Yes, it is.  And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody said they did.*
> 
> Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.
> 
> *Yes, it is.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> And,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.
Click to expand...

attention deficit disorder, much?



> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.*
> 
> A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.
> 
> *full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,*
> 
> Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.
> *
> ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.*
> 
> Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they did.  the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> Yes, it is.  And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody said they did.*
> 
> Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.
> 
> *Yes, it is.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> And,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> attention deficit disorder, much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Trying to follow your confused posts.
Are you talking about
A) Patents
B) Subsidies for unemployed
C) Legal monopolies
D) Fiat money

If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they did.  the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> Yes, it is.  And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody said they did.*
> 
> Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.
> 
> *Yes, it is.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> And,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> attention deficit disorder, much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to follow your confused posts.
> Are you talking about
> A) Patents
> B) Subsidies for unemployed
> C) Legal monopolies
> D) Fiat money
> 
> If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.
Click to expand...

this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody said they did.*
> 
> Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.
> 
> *Yes, it is.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> And,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> attention deficit disorder, much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to follow your confused posts.
> Are you talking about
> A) Patents
> B) Subsidies for unemployed
> C) Legal monopolies
> D) Fiat money
> 
> If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...


Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
conservatives point out their errors.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.
> 
> And,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> attention deficit disorder, much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to follow your confused posts.
> Are you talking about
> A) Patents
> B) Subsidies for unemployed
> C) Legal monopolies
> D) Fiat money
> 
> If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
> conservatives point out their errors.
Click to expand...

all you have, is right wing fantasy.  

income transfers are a requirement.  Taxes is the Means.  The common defense and general welfare, is the End.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> attention deficit disorder, much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to follow your confused posts.
> Are you talking about
> A) Patents
> B) Subsidies for unemployed
> C) Legal monopolies
> D) Fiat money
> 
> If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
> conservatives point out their errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all you have, is right wing fantasy.
> 
> income transfers are a requirement.  Taxes is the Means.  The common defense and general welfare, is the End.
Click to expand...


*all you have, is right wing fantasy. *

Like the left-wing fantasy that a patent is a subsidy? DERP!


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> attention deficit disorder, much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to follow your confused posts.
> Are you talking about
> A) Patents
> B) Subsidies for unemployed
> C) Legal monopolies
> D) Fiat money
> 
> If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
> conservatives point out their errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all you have, is right wing fantasy.
> 
> income transfers are a requirement.  Taxes is the Means.  The common defense and general welfare, is the End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *all you have, is right wing fantasy. *
> 
> Like the left-wing fantasy that a patent is a subsidy? DERP!
Click to expand...

It is an income transfer and that form of subsidy.  It comes from the (other) Peoples' tax monies.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to follow your confused posts.
> Are you talking about
> A) Patents
> B) Subsidies for unemployed
> C) Legal monopolies
> D) Fiat money
> 
> If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.
> 
> 
> 
> this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
> conservatives point out their errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all you have, is right wing fantasy.
> 
> income transfers are a requirement.  Taxes is the Means.  The common defense and general welfare, is the End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *all you have, is right wing fantasy. *
> 
> Like the left-wing fantasy that a patent is a subsidy? DERP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is an income transfer and that form of subsidy.  It comes from the (other) Peoples' tax monies.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


*It is an income transfer and that form of subsidy.* 

A patent is neither an income transfer nor a subsidy.

*It comes from the (other) Peoples' tax monies.* 

A patent has nothing to do with tax money

*Only the right wing, never gets it.*

The right wing gets your ignorance, that's why we mock you.


----------



## danielpalos

Only the right wing, is that fantastical.  Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.

Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement.  It is not free.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Only the right wing, is that fantastical.  Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.
> 
> Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement.  It is not free.
> 
> The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.


*
Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy*

It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
How does it fit income transfer?

*It is not free.*

I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.

*The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.*

Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing, is that fantastical.  Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.
> 
> Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement.  It is not free.
> 
> The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy*
> 
> It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> How does it fit income transfer?
> 
> *It is not free.*
> 
> I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.
> 
> *The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.*
> 
> Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy.  Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.

Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.

spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing, is that fantastical.  Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.
> 
> Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement.  It is not free.
> 
> The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy*
> 
> It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> How does it fit income transfer?
> 
> *It is not free.*
> 
> I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.
> 
> *The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.*
> 
> Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy.  Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.
> 
> Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.
> 
> spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.
Click to expand...

*
Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy*

_In __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb __resources__ or create __output__. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.__[1]__ Examples of certain transfer payments include __welfare (financial aid)__, __social security__, and government making __subsidies__ for certain __businesses__ (firms)._

The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.

*Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.*

No.
Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
It's not a subsidy.


----------



## Old Rocks

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Of course, those whose political beliefs outweigh reason, the words above mean nothing. Solar and wind are winning on all fronts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own article snowflake.  It says nothing of the sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you did not, or are incapable of understanding what the article says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It clearly states that the subsidies make it cheaper, not actual cost of production.  Further it uses the taxes on other fuels figured into those fuels which inflate the actual cost of production there.  You are
> woefully ignorant.
Click to expand...

*Either you are a liar, or you are unable to read with comprehension. Or both.*






The case is even clearer when federal subsidies are considered: Tax credits drive renewable energy’s costs down to $31/MWh for wind and $43/MWh for solar. These low prices are not only cheaper than building new natural gas plants, but they are cheaper than many fossil fuel power plants on their marginal cost (i.e. costs for operating, maintaining, fueling, etc.) alone.

*When you add subsidies in, then there absolutely no comparison. In fact, I, for one, think the subsidies should be removed. Not needed anymore. *


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will save us approximately nothing in the long run. Because for every GWatt of Wind/Solar you need to build or have a GWatt of RELIABLE power backup.. And a lot of Homer Simpsons eating doughnuts at the Nat Gas plant while the wind blows for 20 minutes.. .
Click to expand...

*Fucking bullshit, old man. Right now the solution to that is being built and sold worldwide from North Carolina, Nevada, and other places. *

Britain Is About to Take a Great (Battery) Leap Forward

Grid-scale electricity storage will move closer to commercial reality on Friday when the U.K.’s grid operator offers contracts to companies to help balance the network, a key measure needed to help balance increasing supply from renewables.

National Grid Plc will announce the winners of a bidding round for as much as 200 megawatts of storage capacity, which is about the size of a small power plant.

It’s likely to be the storage industry’s biggest award this year in global market expected to install $5.1 billion of equipment in 2020, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Storage plays a key role in the greening of utilities’ networks by allowing grid managers to handle higher volumes of intermittent power from the wind and sun.

The program is a “major boost for energy storage,”’ said Logan Goldie-Scot, analyst for BNEF in London. “Previously, activity had for the most part been limited to standalone demonstration projects” funded by the U.K. power regulator, Ofgem.

http://www.brattle.com/system/news/..._Distributed_Electricity_Storage_in_Texas.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks

Todd, nice diversion of the topic. However, back to the topic. Wind and solar are going to put coal out of business in the short run, and gas out of business in the long run. And all to the betterment of the grid in reliability and robustness.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Todd, nice diversion of the topic. However, back to the topic. Wind and solar are going to put coal out of business in the short run, and gas out of business in the long run. And all to the betterment of the grid in reliability and robustness.



Everyone who wants to install wind and solar should be free to do so.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing, is that fantastical.  Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.
> 
> Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement.  It is not free.
> 
> The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy*
> 
> It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> How does it fit income transfer?
> 
> *It is not free.*
> 
> I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.
> 
> *The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.*
> 
> Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy.  Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.
> 
> Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.
> 
> spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy*
> 
> _In __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb __resources__ or create __output__. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.__[1]__ Examples of certain transfer payments include __welfare (financial aid)__, __social security__, and government making __subsidies__ for certain __businesses__ (firms)._
> 
> The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
> It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.
> 
> *Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.*
> 
> No.
> Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
> It's not a subsidy.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is:  it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.



> _in __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing, is that fantastical.  Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.
> 
> Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement.  It is not free.
> 
> The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy*
> 
> It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> How does it fit income transfer?
> 
> *It is not free.*
> 
> I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.
> 
> *The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.*
> 
> Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy.  Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.
> 
> Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.
> 
> spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy*
> 
> _In __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb __resources__ or create __output__. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.__[1]__ Examples of certain transfer payments include __welfare (financial aid)__, __social security__, and government making __subsidies__ for certain __businesses__ (firms)._
> 
> The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
> It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.
> 
> *Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.*
> 
> No.
> Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
> It's not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is:  it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _in __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__._
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

Nope. Obviously.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well now, given the present price of solar and wind, I really think that the subsidies should be discontinued. The industry has arrived, it is working well, and should not need any further help. Combine that with the existing grid scale batteries already in production, and you have sources that are 24/7, and far cheaper that fossil fuels, with almost no externalities.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, given the present price of solar and wind, I really think that the subsidies should be discontinued. The industry has arrived, it is working well, and should not need any further help. Combine that with the existing grid scale batteries already in production, and you have sources that are 24/7, and far cheaper that fossil fuels, with almost no externalities.



Is Ivanpah making money yet?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing, is that fantastical.  Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.
> 
> Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement.  It is not free.
> 
> The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy*
> 
> It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> How does it fit income transfer?
> 
> *It is not free.*
> 
> I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.
> 
> *The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.*
> 
> Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy.  Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.
> 
> Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.
> 
> spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy*
> 
> _In __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb __resources__ or create __output__. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.__[1]__ Examples of certain transfer payments include __welfare (financial aid)__, __social security__, and government making __subsidies__ for certain __businesses__ (firms)._
> 
> The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
> It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.
> 
> *Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.*
> 
> No.
> Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
> It's not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is:  it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _in __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
Click to expand...


Our patent laws subsidize our public policies so that we get more of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy*
> 
> It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
> How does it fit income transfer?
> 
> *It is not free.*
> 
> I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.
> 
> *The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.*
> 
> Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy.  Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.
> 
> Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.
> 
> spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy*
> 
> _In __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb __resources__ or create __output__. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.__[1]__ Examples of certain transfer payments include __welfare (financial aid)__, __social security__, and government making __subsidies__ for certain __businesses__ (firms)._
> 
> The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
> It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.
> 
> *Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.*
> 
> No.
> Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
> It's not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is:  it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _in __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our patent laws subsidize our public policies so that we get more of it.
Click to expand...


So that we get more public policy?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy.  Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.
> 
> Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.
> 
> spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy*
> 
> _In __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb __resources__ or create __output__. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.__[1]__ Examples of certain transfer payments include __welfare (financial aid)__, __social security__, and government making __subsidies__ for certain __businesses__ (firms)._
> 
> The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
> It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.
> 
> *Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.*
> 
> No.
> Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
> It's not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is:  it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _in __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our patent laws subsidize our public policies so that we get more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that we get more public policy?
Click to expand...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy*
> 
> _In __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb __resources__ or create __output__. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.__[1]__ Examples of certain transfer payments include __welfare (financial aid)__, __social security__, and government making __subsidies__ for certain __businesses__ (firms)._
> 
> The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
> It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.
> 
> *Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.*
> 
> No.
> Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
> It's not a subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is:  it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _in __economics__, a _*transfer payment*_ (or _*government transfer*_ or simply _*transfer*_) is a __redistribution of income__ in the __market system__._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our patent laws subsidize our public policies so that we get more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that we get more public policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Click to expand...


No mention of a sum of money granted by government. Because it's not a subsidy.


----------



## Old Rocks

The wind turbines are making money, as are the photovoltaics. I think that with the advent of the cheap grid scale batteries, units like Ivanpah will be in the same boat as the fossil fuels and nukes. Too expensive.


----------



## mamooth

Indiana Republicans propose forcibly stealing rooftop solar power. This is why better batteries matter. If it never goes to the grid, the utilities can't legally steal it from you.

New Indiana bill to eliminate net metering and replace with ‘sell all, buy all’ system
---
SB 309 sets out to replace net metering with a system that would require solar consumers to sell all the energy they produce to the utility, at a lower wholesale rate of around US$0.03/kWh, and then purchase it back from the utility at the higher retail rate of around US$0.11/kWh. The balance would go towards the utility's cost of maintaining the grid.
---

A small surcharge for grid maintenance is reasonable for utilities to charge rooftop solar installations. Forcing homeowners to be unpaid power generators for the utilities is unjustifiable by any standard, other than Republican crook standards.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is:  it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our patent laws subsidize our public policies so that we get more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that we get more public policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No mention of a sum of money granted by government. Because it's not a subsidy.
Click to expand...

Protection money?  We pay taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> 
> Nope. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our patent laws subsidize our public policies so that we get more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that we get more public policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No mention of a sum of money granted by government. Because it's not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protection money?  We pay taxes.
Click to expand...


Taxes are not a subsidy for patents.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our patent laws subsidize our public policies so that we get more of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that we get more public policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No mention of a sum of money granted by government. Because it's not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protection money?  We pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are not a subsidy for patents.
Click to expand...

they are for government protection of their "intellectual property" from privateers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that we get more public policy?
> 
> 
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No mention of a sum of money granted by government. Because it's not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protection money?  We pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are not a subsidy for patents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are for government protection of their "intellectual property" from privateers.
Click to expand...


If the government protects my property from thieves, for instance by arresting someone who steals my car, 
is that is a subsidy for car ownership?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No mention of a sum of money granted by government. Because it's not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protection money?  We pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are not a subsidy for patents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are for government protection of their "intellectual property" from privateers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the government protects my property from thieves, for instance by arresting someone who steals my car,
> is that is a subsidy for car ownership?
Click to expand...

it is a cost of Government.  Private enforcement may be impossible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mention of a sum of money granted by government. Because it's not a subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> Protection money?  We pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are not a subsidy for patents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are for government protection of their "intellectual property" from privateers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the government protects my property from thieves, for instance by arresting someone who steals my car,
> is that is a subsidy for car ownership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is a cost of Government.  Private enforcement may be impossible.
Click to expand...


Yes, without being a subsidy.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protection money?  We pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are not a subsidy for patents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are for government protection of their "intellectual property" from privateers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the government protects my property from thieves, for instance by arresting someone who steals my car,
> is that is a subsidy for car ownership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is a cost of Government.  Private enforcement may be impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, without being a subsidy.
Click to expand...

How much tax does any inventor pay?  Does it cover all the costs?  If not, why is the right wing not claiming welfare addiction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are not a subsidy for patents.
> 
> 
> 
> they are for government protection of their "intellectual property" from privateers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the government protects my property from thieves, for instance by arresting someone who steals my car,
> is that is a subsidy for car ownership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is a cost of Government.  Private enforcement may be impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, without being a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much tax does any inventor pay?  Does it cover all the costs?  If not, why is the right wing not claiming welfare addiction.
Click to expand...


How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are for government protection of their "intellectual property" from privateers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government protects my property from thieves, for instance by arresting someone who steals my car,
> is that is a subsidy for car ownership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is a cost of Government.  Private enforcement may be impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, without being a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much tax does any inventor pay?  Does it cover all the costs?  If not, why is the right wing not claiming welfare addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
Click to expand...

Whatever the market will bear; how much will a patent holder make, without government?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the government protects my property from thieves, for instance by arresting someone who steals my car,
> is that is a subsidy for car ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> it is a cost of Government.  Private enforcement may be impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, without being a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much tax does any inventor pay?  Does it cover all the costs?  If not, why is the right wing not claiming welfare addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the market will bear; how much will a patent holder make, without government?
Click to expand...


How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?

*Whatever the market will bear;*

The market isn't handing government money to the patent holder.

*how much will a patent holder make, without government*

You mean if the government doesn't stop North Korea from invading and killing him?
You mean if the government doesn't stop an asteroid from killing him?
You mean if the government doesn't enforce building codes so his home doesn't collapse and kill him?
You mean if the government doesn't stop Mad Max gangs from raping and killing him?

Are those things also subsidies?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is a cost of Government.  Private enforcement may be impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, without being a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much tax does any inventor pay?  Does it cover all the costs?  If not, why is the right wing not claiming welfare addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the market will bear; how much will a patent holder make, without government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> *Whatever the market will bear;*
> 
> The market isn't handing government money to the patent holder.
> 
> *how much will a patent holder make, without government*
> 
> You mean if the government doesn't stop North Korea from invading and killing him?
> You mean if the government doesn't stop an asteroid from killing him?
> You mean if the government doesn't enforce building codes so his home doesn't collapse and kill him?
> You mean if the government doesn't stop Mad Max gangs from raping and killing him?
> 
> Are those things also subsidies?
Click to expand...

It is socialism bailing out capitalism.  Our First World economy doesn't happen by pure capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, without being a subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> How much tax does any inventor pay?  Does it cover all the costs?  If not, why is the right wing not claiming welfare addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the market will bear; how much will a patent holder make, without government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> *Whatever the market will bear;*
> 
> The market isn't handing government money to the patent holder.
> 
> *how much will a patent holder make, without government*
> 
> You mean if the government doesn't stop North Korea from invading and killing him?
> You mean if the government doesn't stop an asteroid from killing him?
> You mean if the government doesn't enforce building codes so his home doesn't collapse and kill him?
> You mean if the government doesn't stop Mad Max gangs from raping and killing him?
> 
> Are those things also subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is socialism bailing out capitalism.  Our First World economy doesn't happen by pure capitalism.
Click to expand...


*It is socialism bailing out capitalism.*

No, it's government carrying out a Constitutional duty.
And it's not a subsidy.

*Our First World economy doesn't happen by pure capitalism.*

Many Third World economies happen by socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much tax does any inventor pay?  Does it cover all the costs?  If not, why is the right wing not claiming welfare addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the market will bear; how much will a patent holder make, without government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> *Whatever the market will bear;*
> 
> The market isn't handing government money to the patent holder.
> 
> *how much will a patent holder make, without government*
> 
> You mean if the government doesn't stop North Korea from invading and killing him?
> You mean if the government doesn't stop an asteroid from killing him?
> You mean if the government doesn't enforce building codes so his home doesn't collapse and kill him?
> You mean if the government doesn't stop Mad Max gangs from raping and killing him?
> 
> Are those things also subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is socialism bailing out capitalism.  Our First World economy doesn't happen by pure capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *It is socialism bailing out capitalism.*
> 
> No, it's government carrying out a Constitutional duty.
> And it's not a subsidy.
> 
> *Our First World economy doesn't happen by pure capitalism.*
> 
> Many Third World economies happen by socialism.
Click to expand...

You are under the mistaken belief, that to "subsidize" something, means Only to make cash payments.  I know how to use a dictionary.

No, third world economies don't happen by socialism; that is second world economies; third world economies are mostly "capitalist".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the market will bear; how much will a patent holder make, without government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much cash does the government hand to a patent holder?
> 
> *Whatever the market will bear;*
> 
> The market isn't handing government money to the patent holder.
> 
> *how much will a patent holder make, without government*
> 
> You mean if the government doesn't stop North Korea from invading and killing him?
> You mean if the government doesn't stop an asteroid from killing him?
> You mean if the government doesn't enforce building codes so his home doesn't collapse and kill him?
> You mean if the government doesn't stop Mad Max gangs from raping and killing him?
> 
> Are those things also subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is socialism bailing out capitalism.  Our First World economy doesn't happen by pure capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *It is socialism bailing out capitalism.*
> 
> No, it's government carrying out a Constitutional duty.
> And it's not a subsidy.
> 
> *Our First World economy doesn't happen by pure capitalism.*
> 
> Many Third World economies happen by socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are under the mistaken belief, that to "subsidize" something, means Only to make cash payments.  I know how to use a dictionary.
> 
> No, third world economies don't happen by socialism; that is second world economies; third world economies are mostly "capitalist".
Click to expand...

*
You are under the mistaken belief, that to "subsidize" something, means Only to make cash payments.* 

_a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
_
LOL!
*
I know how to use a dictionary.*

Great. Find a word that fits. Post it here.


----------



## danielpalos

Socialism has to bailout capitalism all the time.  

And, 

technologies are improving all the time.


----------



## boedicca

Ask the Germans (hint, they were better off with nuclear):

_
The trouble is that Germany isn’t an ideal place for solar and wind power. So to cover any shortfalls in energy production, the nation would have to be able to rely on energy imports from neighboring countries.

But that was a minor issue for the German government obsessed with the green energy revolution. German energy giants like RWE and E.ON were required to close eight nuclear power plants immediately in March 2011.

“Obviously, the loss of profits was immense,” adds Burdenski.  “The companies sued the German government for redress. Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Constitutional Court judged in favor of E.on, RWE and Vattenfall in a first ruling. Further lawsuits are still outstanding. The companies will now receive compensation for investments made between the lifetime extension in fall 2010 and the abandonment of nuclear energy in 2011.”

Now investors, workers, and taxpayers are counting their losses from the green energy disaster.  E.on’s and RWE’s stocks  have lost 80 percent of their value from the old time highs, as the two companies have had to adjust their business model to the green policies. Workers have been losing their jobs, and taxpayers are in for billions of euros to cover the write off of nuclear plants—E.on and RWE have won lawsuits against government.
*
As of German consumers, they pay one of the highest electricity rates in the developed world....

Forbes Welcome*_


----------



## danielpalos

boedicca said:


> Ask the Germans (hint, they were better off with nuclear):
> 
> _
> The trouble is that Germany isn’t an ideal place for solar and wind power. So to cover any shortfalls in energy production, the nation would have to be able to rely on energy imports from neighboring countries.
> 
> But that was a minor issue for the German government obsessed with the green energy revolution. German energy giants like RWE and E.ON were required to close eight nuclear power plants immediately in March 2011.
> 
> “Obviously, the loss of profits was immense,” adds Burdenski.  “The companies sued the German government for redress. Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Constitutional Court judged in favor of E.on, RWE and Vattenfall in a first ruling. Further lawsuits are still outstanding. The companies will now receive compensation for investments made between the lifetime extension in fall 2010 and the abandonment of nuclear energy in 2011.”
> 
> Now investors, workers, and taxpayers are counting their losses from the green energy disaster.  E.on’s and RWE’s stocks  have lost 80 percent of their value from the old time highs, as the two companies have had to adjust their business model to the green policies. Workers have been losing their jobs, and taxpayers are in for billions of euros to cover the write off of nuclear plants—E.on and RWE have won lawsuits against government.
> *
> As of German consumers, they pay one of the highest electricity rates in the developed world....
> 
> Forbes Welcome*_


They just need to upgrade, to sextuple their energy output.


----------



## Old Rocks

Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia

*Over-commitment and cancellations[edit]*
See also: List of canceled nuclear plants in the United States



Net summer electrical generation capacity of US nuclear power plants, 1949-2011



Average capacity factor of US nuclear power plants, 1957-2011
By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[30]

Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[31][32][33]

Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[34] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:

Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[35]

Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:

Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[36]

A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of _Forbes magazine_ commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:

The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[37]
*FUBARs in the nuke industry killed the nuke industry. Let the dead stay dead.*


----------



## elektra

Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.

The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past. 

Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more. 

Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive. 

But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday. 

Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association


> *
> There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.*
> 
> *They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.*
> *55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.*







> The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.





> US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity





> *United States*
> In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.



You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.

Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that. 

Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Old Rocks said:


> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Of course, those whose political beliefs outweigh reason, the words above mean nothing. Solar and wind are winning on all fronts.*



Not by a long shot.


----------



## Old Rocks

Solar and Wind: How Low Can They Go?

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

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

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

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

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







CREDCIT: Lazard






*LOL*


----------



## Old Rocks

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

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

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


*



*

*By Mike O’Boyle*

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

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

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

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

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

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






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






*Wind and solar, winners for sure.*


----------



## elektra

Yet, for all the hype about Renewable Energy, you can not use Renewable Energy to produce Wind Turbines or Solar Panels. It is too weak, you need Coal to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels. 

At best, Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are dependent on increased use of Coal.


----------



## Old Rocks

More stinky 'facts' pulled from an idiots ass.


----------



## elektra

Seems very expensive to me, so many different figures, which do we believe? $33 trillion, $12.1 trillion? The government low-balls these things, I bet it costs $100 trillion.

*New report: $12.1 trillion must be invested in new renewable power generation over next 25 years to limit climate change — Ceres*

*New report: $12.1 trillion must be invested in new renewable power generation over next 25 years to limit climate change *


----------



## danielpalos

elektra said:


> Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.
> 
> The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
> 
> Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
> 
> Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
> 
> But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
> 
> Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
> 
> 
> 
> *There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.*
> 
> *They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.*
> *55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United States*
> In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
> 
> Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
> 
> Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
Click to expand...

some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).


----------



## danielpalos

elektra said:


> Yet, for all the hype about Renewable Energy, you can not use Renewable Energy to produce Wind Turbines or Solar Panels. It is too weak, you need Coal to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels.
> 
> At best, Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are dependent on increased use of Coal.


science and technology is improving all the time.

many grids just need to be upgraded with the latest technologies; to sextuple energy output in a bird friendly manner.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.
> 
> The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
> 
> Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
> 
> Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
> 
> But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
> 
> Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
> 
> 
> 
> *There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.*
> 
> *They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.*
> *55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United States*
> In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
> 
> Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
> 
> Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).
Click to expand...


And none on the right? LOL!


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.
> 
> The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
> 
> Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
> 
> Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
> 
> But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
> 
> Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
> 
> 
> 
> *There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.*
> 
> *They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.*
> *55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United States*
> In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
> 
> Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
> 
> Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none on the right? LOL!
Click to expand...

i thought they were cronies for fission.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.
> 
> The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
> 
> Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
> 
> Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
> 
> But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
> 
> Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
> 
> 
> 
> *There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.*
> 
> *They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.*
> *55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United States*
> In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
> 
> Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
> 
> Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none on the right? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought they were cronies for fission.
Click to expand...


Fission is awesome and it works right now.
If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.
> 
> The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
> 
> Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
> 
> Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
> 
> But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
> 
> Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
> 
> 
> 
> *There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.*
> 
> *They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.*
> *55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United States*
> In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
> 
> Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
> 
> Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none on the right? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought they were cronies for fission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fission is awesome and it works right now.
> If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.
Click to expand...

after a Manhattan Project.  Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.
> 
> The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
> 
> Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
> 
> Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
> 
> But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
> 
> Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
> You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
> 
> Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
> 
> Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
> 
> 
> 
> some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none on the right? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought they were cronies for fission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fission is awesome and it works right now.
> If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after a Manhattan Project.  Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?
Click to expand...


You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And none on the right? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought they were cronies for fission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fission is awesome and it works right now.
> If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after a Manhattan Project.  Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?
Click to expand...

Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none on the right? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> i thought they were cronies for fission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fission is awesome and it works right now.
> If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after a Manhattan Project.  Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.
Click to expand...


So what? Fission is actually a useful source of reliable energy.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought they were cronies for fission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fission is awesome and it works right now.
> If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after a Manhattan Project.  Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? Fission is actually a useful source of reliable energy.
Click to expand...

so is fusion (an energy with a future).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fission is awesome and it works right now.
> If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.
> 
> 
> 
> after a Manhattan Project.  Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? Fission is actually a useful source of reliable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is fusion (an energy with a future).
Click to expand...


Fusion is a reliable source of energy? How many MWH does it currently deliver to our grid?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> after a Manhattan Project.  Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? Fission is actually a useful source of reliable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fusion is a reliable source of energy? How many MWH does it currently deliver to our grid?
Click to expand...

Life could not exist on Earth, without it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? Fission is actually a useful source of reliable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fusion is a reliable source of energy? How many MWH does it currently deliver to our grid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life could not exist on Earth, without it.
Click to expand...


We're talking about the grid, not life.


----------



## there4eyeM

And the sun is as close as you want to get to one.


----------



## danielpalos

How long until we start storing spent nuclear fuel, on "Moon Base Alpha"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> How long until we start storing spent nuclear fuel, on "Moon Base Alpha"?



Why would we waste perfectly good fissionables?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long until we start storing spent nuclear fuel, on "Moon Base Alpha"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we waste perfectly good fissionables?
Click to expand...

Just right wing fantasy?



> In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, *nuclear fission* is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long until we start storing spent nuclear fuel, on "Moon Base Alpha"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we waste perfectly good fissionables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, *nuclear fission* is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Silly liberal waste.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long until we start storing spent nuclear fuel, on "Moon Base Alpha"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we waste perfectly good fissionables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, *nuclear fission* is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly liberal waste.
Click to expand...

In nuclear physics, *nuclear fusion* is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei come close enough to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons and/or protons). The difference in mass between the products and reactants is manifested as the release of large amounts of energy. This difference in mass arises due to the difference in atomic "binding energy" between the atomic nuclei before and after the reaction. Fusion is the process that powers active or "main sequence" stars, or other high magnitude stars.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long until we start storing spent nuclear fuel, on "Moon Base Alpha"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we waste perfectly good fissionables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, *nuclear fission* is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly liberal waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In nuclear physics, *nuclear fusion* is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei come close enough to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons and/or protons). The difference in mass between the products and reactants is manifested as the release of large amounts of energy. This difference in mass arises due to the difference in atomic "binding energy" between the atomic nuclei before and after the reaction. Fusion is the process that powers active or "main sequence" stars, or other high magnitude stars.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## there4eyeM

*How much can renewable energy save us?*

*Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*


----------



## Death Angel

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.
> 
> The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
> 
> Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
> 
> Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
> 
> But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
> 
> Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
> 
> 
> 
> *There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.*
> 
> *They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.*
> *55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United States*
> In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
> 
> Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
> 
> Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none on the right? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought they were cronies for fission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fission is awesome and it works right now.
> If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.
Click to expand...

Agree. They've been hoping for a fusion breakthrough for 50 years. Continue working on it, but until then, use what works.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long until we start storing spent nuclear fuel, on "Moon Base Alpha"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we waste perfectly good fissionables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, *nuclear fission* is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly liberal waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In nuclear physics, *nuclear fusion* is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei come close enough to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons and/or protons). The difference in mass between the products and reactants is manifested as the release of large amounts of energy. This difference in mass arises due to the difference in atomic "binding energy" between the atomic nuclei before and after the reaction. Fusion is the process that powers active or "main sequence" stars, or other high magnitude stars.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...

*power stations would be inherently safe, with no possibility of “meltdown” or “runaway reactions”--http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/understandingfusion/merits.aspx*


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*



it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs


----------



## Death Angel

Skull Pilot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
Click to expand...

Fusion? Or solar?  Both do, but right now, fusion is only a dream


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we waste perfectly good fissionables?
> 
> 
> 
> Just right wing fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, *nuclear fission* is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly liberal waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In nuclear physics, *nuclear fusion* is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei come close enough to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons and/or protons). The difference in mass between the products and reactants is manifested as the release of large amounts of energy. This difference in mass arises due to the difference in atomic "binding energy" between the atomic nuclei before and after the reaction. Fusion is the process that powers active or "main sequence" stars, or other high magnitude stars.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *power stations would be inherently safe, with no possibility of “meltdown” or “runaway reactions”--http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/understandingfusion/merits.aspx*
Click to expand...


Well, yes, it's impossible to have a meltdown when you can't sustain a reaction that releases more energy than it consumes.


----------



## Decus

According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.

_"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."


"Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_

Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study

So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Decus said:


> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .





Which lends a mountain of credence to the view that the warmist scam is really a plan to institute global governance.


----------



## there4eyeM

Skull Pilot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Rate of consumption does not equal quantity needed. 
But, it is much more in the interests of those hypnotized by power to keep us bound to relatively monopolistic, centralized types of energy. We just don't prefer peace to having our petty way.


----------



## expat_panama

Old Rocks said:


> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources


That's so easy to say but we all know why nobody drives a wind powered car to work.  We can say what we want about how this or that is so good that we need to force others to buy it, but the fact remains after decades and billions in forced tax subsidies--





--the so-called 'renewables' are just not worth it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Death Angel said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fusion? Or solar?  Both do, but right now, fusion is only a dream
Click to expand...

I don't think fusion fits into the renewable energy category it is a type of nuclear power

wind and solar will not ever meet our needs for power


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does. Rate of consumption does not equal quantity needed.
> But, it is much more in the interests of those hypnotized by power to keep us bound to relatively monopolistic, centralized types of energy. We just don't prefer peace to having our petty way.
Click to expand...


Base line power will never be met by wind and solar
if you people are really concerned about emissions then you should be backing nuclear power.

If John Kerry and the other idiots in DC who were scared shitless because of some bad movie hadn't for all intents and purposes squashed our nuclear energy program we would today have at the very least a number of Integral fast reactors providing abundant emission free reliable power 24/7/365 an at best we would be researching and developing molten salt type reactors that are small easy and inexpensive to build and install and virtually maintenance free and would burn for fuel the nuclear waste from our obsolete reactors


----------



## there4eyeM

Before the Wright brothers, people would never fly.


----------



## expat_panama

there4eyeM said:


> Before the Wright brothers, people would never fly.


Exactly,   Sure, after a century of government run aviation and having men getting killed in various kinds of balloons, Wilbur and Orville finally came in using their own money and built the first functional aircraft.

That's a lesson for the gov't energy people.


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> Before the Wright brothers, people would never fly.



wind has been tried in both Germany and the UK and has failed miserably
Real life output is less that 25% of rated capacity.  Now tell me what would you rather invest in

A power supply that only puts out 25% of its rated capacity, a power source that only works half of the day and is only practical at some latitudes both of the former which need to be at some distance from the point of use which causes additional transmission related losses or a power source that can be deployed virtually anywhere and will provide 90% of it's rated capacity 24/7/365?


----------



## Old Rocks

Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

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

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

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

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

*Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1*




Investment in Power Capacity, 2008-2015

Source: BNEF, UNEP
Government subsidies have helped wind and solar get a foothold in global power markets, but economies of scale are the true driver of falling prices: The cost of solar power has fallen to 1/150th of its level in the 1970s, while the total amount of installed solar has soared 115,000-fold. 

*As solar prices fall, installations boom *






Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

*Looks to me as if the renewables are on a roll.*


----------



## expat_panama

Old Rocks said:


> ...renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce...


The title we saw seemed to agree -

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

--however the omitted part of the title was *Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1*. In other words, their point is they're talking about energy investing, not production costs.

A lot of us would be tickled to say you're right about production costs if you'd just agree that it's time to end 'renewable' subsidies. Unfortunately, the only way to make the public use green electricity is w/ taxes because the actual cost of green electricity is still way higher than standard sources:


----------



## Old Rocks

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

*Looks like wind is doing well in Europe.*


----------



## Old Rocks

*Coal phases out in wealthier countries first*




What does that look like on a country-level basis? The world's first coal superpower, the U.K., now produces less power from coal than it has since at least 1850. 

*Canary in the coal mine: U.K.*




Source: BNEF
More recently it's the oil and gas industry that's been under attack. Prices have tumbled and investments have started drying up. The number of oil rigs active in the U.S. fell last month to the lowest since records began in the 1940s. Producers—from tiny frontier drillers to massive petrol-producing nation-states—are creeping ever closer to insolvency.  

"What we're talking about is miscalculation of risk," said BNEF's Liebreich. "We're talking about a business model that is predicated on never-ending growth, a business model that is predicated on being able to find unlimited supplies of capital."

The chart below shows independent oil producers and their ability to pay their debt.1  The pink quadrant at the bottom right represents the greatest threat to a company's solvency. By 2015, that quadrant starts to fill up, and Liebreich warned, "It's going to get uglier."

*U.S. oil patch heads to the insolvency zone *






Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

*Interesting numbers.*


----------



## there4eyeM

It is an odd way to look at 'cost' for something that not only pays for itself over time, but essentially puts money back into the pocket.


----------



## elektra

danielpalos said:


> *power stations would be inherently safe, with no possibility of “meltdown” or “runaway reactions”--http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/understandingfusion/merits.aspx*


Runaway Reaction? Something that has never ever happened in a Nuclear Reactor. Fission reactors do not suffer Runaway Reactions! Talk about a false premise.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> *Coal phases out in wealthier countries first*
> 
> Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
> 
> *Interesting numbers.*


Now, the only industry that needs coal, is Wind and Solar, you can not make Wind and Solar without Coal.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


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


and you're still doing it

stop focusing on installed capacity as your measurement variable and instead focus on actual output


----------



## expat_panama

Old Rocks said:


> "It's going to get uglier."   *U.S. oil patch heads to the insolvency zone *


What's interesting in our discussion here is the fact that we got 2 controversies where we disagree on what's happening but we can agree on policy.  

The first is whether solar is viable; you say it is and I say it isn't but we should both agree (for opposite reasons) that public policy makers should end solar tax financed subsidies. The other controversy is whether the U.S. petroleum industry outlook is rebound or collapse.  If you seriously believe your view that the sector's about to tank then many of my collegues in the financial markets would love to sell you short contracts that would pay you handsomely if you're right. Pse let me know when you've thought it through.

One last thought, if you decide that solar is not worth risking your own money, then I'd beg you to consider how I feel about the previous president taking my money by force and wasting it on solar scams like Solyndra LLC when* Obama-backed green energy failures leave taxpayers with $2.2 billion tab, audit finds*


----------



## there4eyeM

We do a world wide energy audit. We find out how much energy we derive now from renewables. We learn to live on that. We learn to improve on it for the luxuries we want. We gain a more beautiful, more livable world. We develop our creativity. We find new methods, new industries, new ideas. We do the things that make humans so wonderful.
Or, we simmer slowly in the mess we're in and die a dismal death.
Unrealistic? Hope is unrealistic, but it's what fueled Christianity, for example. How did twelve hunted, persecuted idealists even survive, let alone more or less conquer the world?


----------



## Old Rocks

expat_panama said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's going to get uglier."   *U.S. oil patch heads to the insolvency zone *
> 
> 
> 
> What's interesting in our discussion here is the fact that we got 2 controversies where we disagree on what's happening but we can agree on policy.
> 
> The first is whether solar is viable; you say it is and I say it isn't but we should both agree (for opposite reasons) that public policy makers should end solar tax financed subsidies. The other controversy is whether the U.S. petroleum industry outlook is rebound or collapse.  If you seriously believe your view that the sector's about to tank then many of my collegues in the financial markets would love to sell you short contracts that would pay you handsomely if you're right. Pse let me know when you've thought it through.
> 
> One last thought, if you decide that solar is not worth risking your own money, then I'd beg you to consider how I feel about the previous president taking my money by force and wasting it on solar scams like Solyndra LLC when* Obama-backed green energy failures leave taxpayers with $2.2 billion tab, audit finds*
Click to expand...

Obama Has Done More for Clean Energy Than You Think

The biggest challenge the loan program faced may not have been public criticism of failed deals like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive and Beacon Power or technology letdowns such as the Ivanpah solar-thermal power plant producing less electricity than expected. Rather, the biggest challenge came from within the Obama administration itself, particularly the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which stood athwart greater ambition. For example, one deal, dubbed SolarStrong, would have loaned $344 million to put solar panels on housing on military bases across the country. But OMB axed the deal because budget rules require it to assume that the Department of Defense might not have the appropriations to repay the loan in future decades. "At which point, all you can do is go home and have a scotch," Silver recalls.

"Military appropriations are not considered permanent appropriations," explains Peter Davidson, who oversaw the LPO from 2013 to June of this year. "It's the environment we have to work in, we try and do what we can."

In the end, the LPO's successes helped kill off some of its own portfolio of projects. Building utility-scale solar photovoltaic plants like Agua Caliente and Antelope Valley helped render obsolete solar thermal power plants like Ivanpah and Solana as silicon technology improved dramatically and costs dropped whereas the price of steel and glass remained relatively high. Large photovoltaic installations also helped make solar panels so cheap that it drove companies like Solyndra—whose business model relied on PV remaining expensive—into bankruptcy. "We were simply financing the best deals available," Silver says, noting that the program could not independently seek out good projects. "The single thing that bound all these applications together was not their size or technology or geography or financing structure. The single thing that bound them together is that they applied."

*That also means the loan program may have taken too little risk. The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date*. At least $5 billion more is expected over the next few decades as loans are paid back. That compares with $780 million in losses to date, the bulk of which is accounted for by the $535 million loaned to Solyndra. And more money could be made if the program were to ever sell its group of loans rather than managing them for the next few decades.

*I think that I put more trust in the assessment of the Scientific American than a newspaper.*


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
Click to expand...

we need a better grid and increased capacitance, to "catch and store" lighting energy.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we need a better grid and increased capacitance, to "catch and store" lighting energy.
Click to expand...

no


----------



## danielpalos

Decus said:


> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .


technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's going to get uglier."   *U.S. oil patch heads to the insolvency zone *
> 
> 
> 
> What's interesting in our discussion here is the fact that we got 2 controversies where we disagree on what's happening but we can agree on policy.
> 
> The first is whether solar is viable; you say it is and I say it isn't but we should both agree (for opposite reasons) that public policy makers should end solar tax financed subsidies. The other controversy is whether the U.S. petroleum industry outlook is rebound or collapse.  If you seriously believe your view that the sector's about to tank then many of my collegues in the financial markets would love to sell you short contracts that would pay you handsomely if you're right. Pse let me know when you've thought it through.
> 
> One last thought, if you decide that solar is not worth risking your own money, then I'd beg you to consider how I feel about the previous president taking my money by force and wasting it on solar scams like Solyndra LLC when* Obama-backed green energy failures leave taxpayers with $2.2 billion tab, audit finds*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama Has Done More for Clean Energy Than You Think
> 
> The biggest challenge the loan program faced may not have been public criticism of failed deals like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive and Beacon Power or technology letdowns such as the Ivanpah solar-thermal power plant producing less electricity than expected. Rather, the biggest challenge came from within the Obama administration itself, particularly the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which stood athwart greater ambition. For example, one deal, dubbed SolarStrong, would have loaned $344 million to put solar panels on housing on military bases across the country. But OMB axed the deal because budget rules require it to assume that the Department of Defense might not have the appropriations to repay the loan in future decades. "At which point, all you can do is go home and have a scotch," Silver recalls.
> 
> "Military appropriations are not considered permanent appropriations," explains Peter Davidson, who oversaw the LPO from 2013 to June of this year. "It's the environment we have to work in, we try and do what we can."
> 
> In the end, the LPO's successes helped kill off some of its own portfolio of projects. Building utility-scale solar photovoltaic plants like Agua Caliente and Antelope Valley helped render obsolete solar thermal power plants like Ivanpah and Solana as silicon technology improved dramatically and costs dropped whereas the price of steel and glass remained relatively high. Large photovoltaic installations also helped make solar panels so cheap that it drove companies like Solyndra—whose business model relied on PV remaining expensive—into bankruptcy. "We were simply financing the best deals available," Silver says, noting that the program could not independently seek out good projects. "The single thing that bound all these applications together was not their size or technology or geography or financing structure. The single thing that bound them together is that they applied."
> 
> *That also means the loan program may have taken too little risk. The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date*. At least $5 billion more is expected over the next few decades as loans are paid back. That compares with $780 million in losses to date, the bulk of which is accounted for by the $535 million loaned to Solyndra. And more money could be made if the program were to ever sell its group of loans rather than managing them for the next few decades.
> 
> *I think that I put more trust in the assessment of the Scientific American than a newspaper.*
Click to expand...


*That also means the loan program may have taken too little risk. The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date*.

I'd like to see the backup for this "profit".


----------



## Old Rocks

Google at your finger tips.


----------



## danielpalos

Banks are supposed to make money, not get bailed out, ceteris paribus.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Google at your finger tips.



Lot's of crap on Google.
Not much proof of profit.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google at your finger tips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of crap on Google.
> Not much proof of profit.
Click to expand...

I found it.  Just right wing laziness while blaming the poor?  how, unhypocritical, is that.


----------



## expat_panama

expat_panama said:


> whether the U.S. petroleum industry outlook is rebound or collapse. If you seriously believe your view that the sector's about to tank then many of my collegues in the financial markets would love to sell you short contracts





expat_panama said:


> if you decide that solar is not worth risking your own money, then I'd beg you to consider how I feel about the previous president taking my money by force and wasting it on solar scams like Solyndra





Old Rocks said:


> ...$780 million in losses to date, the bulk of which is accounted for by the $535 million loaned to Solyndra....



You're not quite answering but what the rest of us here gather is that you don't want to risk your money on green energy but you do want to spend our money. My guess is that those bad old days are fading into history and things are changing for the better.

Your beliefs in what works is going to need your money; my money has been spoken for.


----------



## expat_panama

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date*.  I'd like to see the backup for this "profit".





Old Rocks said:


> Google at your finger tips.


OldRocks may be thinking of *U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra *.  Sure, expecting $5B is nice, but somehow I seriously doubt it means that when my tax bill comes due I won't have to actually _pay_ it, I'll only need to tell the IRS to _"expect"_ it instead.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
Click to expand...


no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill

and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
Click to expand...

I don't take your arguments seriously; simply because you seem to have, lousy reading comprehension.

technology is improving all the time. 

many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google at your finger tips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of crap on Google.
> Not much proof of profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I found it.  Just right wing laziness while blaming the poor?  how, unhypocritical, is that.
Click to expand...

*
I found it.* 

I await your post of your find on the thread.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we need a better grid and increased capacitance, to "catch and store" lighting energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no
Click to expand...

Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google at your finger tips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of crap on Google.
> Not much proof of profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I found it.  Just right wing laziness while blaming the poor?  how, unhypocritical, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I found it.*
> 
> I await your post of your find on the thread.
Click to expand...

Just right wing laziness; that is all.

_Already, Tesla has repaid its $465-million loan nine years early, thanks to the innovative financing terms devised in its deal, part of $3.5 billion in loans that have already been repaid.--https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-has-done-more-for-clean-energy-than-you-think/_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

expat_panama said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date*.  I'd like to see the backup for this "profit".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google at your finger tips.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OldRocks may be thinking of *U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra *.  Sure, expecting $5B is nice, but somehow I seriously doubt it means that when my tax bill comes due I won't have to actually _pay_ it, I'll only need to tell the IRS to _"expect"_ it instead.
Click to expand...



Thanks.

_The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
_
Looks like they've lent about $16 billion.

*The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date*_. At least $5 billion more is expected over the next few decades as loans are paid back.
_
Are they considering any interest payment to be profit?
Hard to tell without more backup.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google at your finger tips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of crap on Google.
> Not much proof of profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I found it.  Just right wing laziness while blaming the poor?  how, unhypocritical, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I found it.*
> 
> I await your post of your find on the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing laziness; that is all.
> 
> _Already, Tesla has repaid its $465-million loan nine years early, thanks to the innovative financing terms devised in its deal, part of $3.5 billion in loans that have already been repaid.--https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-has-done-more-for-clean-energy-than-you-think/_
Click to expand...


Thanks.
If only that was proof that there is $1 billion in profit to date.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google at your finger tips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of crap on Google.
> Not much proof of profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I found it.  Just right wing laziness while blaming the poor?  how, unhypocritical, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I found it.*
> 
> I await your post of your find on the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing laziness; that is all.
> 
> _Already, Tesla has repaid its $465-million loan nine years early, thanks to the innovative financing terms devised in its deal, part of $3.5 billion in loans that have already been repaid.--https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-has-done-more-for-clean-energy-than-you-think/_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> If only that was proof that there is $1 billion in profit to date.
Click to expand...

Banks are not in it to lose money by lending.  The Fed also earns a profit.  Yet, the right wing wants to audit a profit center like the Fed and not cost centers like our War on Drugs.



> *The War on Drugs Has Cost Taxpayers Over 1 Trillion Dollars*--http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-09/war-drugs-has-cost-taxpayers-over-1-trillion-dollars


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of crap on Google.
> Not much proof of profit.
> 
> 
> 
> I found it.  Just right wing laziness while blaming the poor?  how, unhypocritical, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I found it.*
> 
> I await your post of your find on the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing laziness; that is all.
> 
> _Already, Tesla has repaid its $465-million loan nine years early, thanks to the innovative financing terms devised in its deal, part of $3.5 billion in loans that have already been repaid.--https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-has-done-more-for-clean-energy-than-you-think/_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> If only that was proof that there is $1 billion in profit to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Banks are not in it to lose money by lending.  The Fed also earns a profit.  Yet, the right wing wants to audit a profit center like the Fed and not cost centers like our War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The War on Drugs Has Cost Taxpayers Over 1 Trillion Dollars*--http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-09/war-drugs-has-cost-taxpayers-over-1-trillion-dollars
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's awful. Let me know if you ever find any backup for the $1 billion profit claim.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't take your arguments seriously; simply because you seem to have, lousy reading comprehension.
> 
> technology is improving all the time.
> 
> many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
Click to expand...


No our tax dollars should be spent on the energy source that provides the most consistent reliable output not wind which only supplies 25% or less of its rated capacity and what you don't understand is that that measly 25% is provided by the latest and best wind technology


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we need a better grid and increased capacitance, to "catch and store" lighting energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."
Click to expand...

a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron

we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free

That is nuclear power plain and simple


----------



## expat_panama

danielpalos said:


> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...


Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?

If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money. 

One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google at your finger tips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of crap on Google.
> Not much proof of profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I found it.  Just right wing laziness while blaming the poor?  how, unhypocritical, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I found it.*
> 
> I await your post of your find on the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing laziness; that is all.
> 
> _Already, Tesla has repaid its $465-million loan nine years early, thanks to the innovative financing terms devised in its deal, part of $3.5 billion in loans that have already been repaid.--https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-has-done-more-for-clean-energy-than-you-think/_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> If only that was proof that there is $1 billion in profit to date.
Click to expand...

Well, paying off a loan, early, does result in less profit to a bank.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't take your arguments seriously; simply because you seem to have, lousy reading comprehension.
> 
> technology is improving all the time.
> 
> many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No our tax dollars should be spent on the energy source that provides the most consistent reliable output not wind which only supplies 25% or less of its rated capacity and what you don't understand is that that measly 25% is provided by the latest and best wind technology
Click to expand...

all we need, is a better grid.  you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we need a better grid and increased capacitance, to "catch and store" lighting energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron
> 
> we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free
> 
> That is nuclear power plain and simple
Click to expand...

It is about balancing our energy portfolio and improving technologies; sextuple.  that is what got me interested.


and is bird safer.


----------



## danielpalos

expat_panama said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
Click to expand...

For the same reason, our alleged, capitalist in chief, preferred not to finance his own cruiser and merely, "take care of business" in the Middle East. 

That is why.


----------



## expat_panama

expat_panama said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> For the same reason, our alleged, capitalist in chief, preferred not to finance his own cruiser and merely, "take care of business" in the Middle East.
> 
> That is why.


You don't say what the reason is so I'll guess your take is wind farms are not investments that pay for themselves, they're purchases like cruisers that we buy and hope we don't have to use them.


Did I guess right?  I'm not to good at guessing games, if I missed this one then let's just say what we mean --like how you don't want to invest your own money in wind/solar because it doesn't work and I invest my own money in oil because it works.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't take your arguments seriously; simply because you seem to have, lousy reading comprehension.
> 
> technology is improving all the time.
> 
> many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No our tax dollars should be spent on the energy source that provides the most consistent reliable output not wind which only supplies 25% or less of its rated capacity and what you don't understand is that that measly 25% is provided by the latest and best wind technology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all we need, is a better grid.  you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.
Click to expand...


I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
> 
> 
> 
> we need a better grid and increased capacitance, to "catch and store" lighting energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron
> 
> we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free
> 
> That is nuclear power plain and simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about balancing our energy portfolio and improving technologies; sextuple.  that is what got me interested.
> 
> 
> and is bird safer.
Click to expand...


Here is the question you will not be able to answer.

6 times more rated capacity or 6 times more actual energy output?

And no matter how you slice it wind is at best an intermittent source for power.


----------



## danielpalos

expat_panama said:


> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason, our alleged, capitalist in chief, preferred not to finance his own cruiser and merely, "take care of business" in the Middle East.
> 
> That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't say what the reason is so I'll guess your take is wind farms are not investments that pay for themselves, they're purchases like cruisers that we buy and hope we don't have to use them.
> 
> 
> Did I guess right?  I'm not to good at guessing games, if I missed this one then let's just say what we mean --like how you don't want to invest your own money in wind/solar because it doesn't work and I invest my own money in oil because it works.
Click to expand...

State capitalism, a form of socialism, works better than truer forms of capitalism; that is why.

Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works, and with better technologies and an upgraded grid; we could have cost effective energy to balance our energy portfolio.

And, I prefer to advance fusion (an energy with a future) over fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason, our alleged, capitalist in chief, preferred not to finance his own cruiser and merely, "take care of business" in the Middle East.
> 
> That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't say what the reason is so I'll guess your take is wind farms are not investments that pay for themselves, they're purchases like cruisers that we buy and hope we don't have to use them.
> 
> 
> Did I guess right?  I'm not to good at guessing games, if I missed this one then let's just say what we mean --like how you don't want to invest your own money in wind/solar because it doesn't work and I invest my own money in oil because it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State capitalism, a form of socialism, works better than truer forms of capitalism; that is why.
> 
> Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works, and with better technologies and an upgraded grid; we could have cost effective energy to balance our energy portfolio.
> 
> And, I prefer to advance fusion (an energy with a future) over fossil fuels.
Click to expand...


*Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works,*

Excellent news.
You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't take your arguments seriously; simply because you seem to have, lousy reading comprehension.
> 
> technology is improving all the time.
> 
> many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No our tax dollars should be spent on the energy source that provides the most consistent reliable output not wind which only supplies 25% or less of its rated capacity and what you don't understand is that that measly 25% is provided by the latest and best wind technology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all we need, is a better grid.  you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money
Click to expand...

The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.

How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we need a better grid and increased capacitance, to "catch and store" lighting energy.
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron
> 
> we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free
> 
> That is nuclear power plain and simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about balancing our energy portfolio and improving technologies; sextuple.  that is what got me interested.
> 
> 
> and is bird safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the question you will not be able to answer.
> 
> 6 times more rated capacity or 6 times more actual energy output?
> 
> And no matter how you slice it wind is at best an intermittent source for power.
Click to expand...

6 times more than we get from current wind turbine technology.  And, with an upgraded grid, we can connect wind power, Any Where, in the US. 

Chicago (the windy city) seems like a good place to have some advanced wind energy technologies.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason, our alleged, capitalist in chief, preferred not to finance his own cruiser and merely, "take care of business" in the Middle East.
> 
> That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't say what the reason is so I'll guess your take is wind farms are not investments that pay for themselves, they're purchases like cruisers that we buy and hope we don't have to use them.
> 
> 
> Did I guess right?  I'm not to good at guessing games, if I missed this one then let's just say what we mean --like how you don't want to invest your own money in wind/solar because it doesn't work and I invest my own money in oil because it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State capitalism, a form of socialism, works better than truer forms of capitalism; that is why.
> 
> Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works, and with better technologies and an upgraded grid; we could have cost effective energy to balance our energy portfolio.
> 
> And, I prefer to advance fusion (an energy with a future) over fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works,*
> 
> Excellent news.
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
Click to expand...

No thanks; I like to balance my portfolio; not just invest in fossil fuels.


----------



## HenryBHough

Kinda fun watching how the magical renewable pumped storage hydro project is working out for Oroville, California just now.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take your arguments seriously; simply because you seem to have, lousy reading comprehension.
> 
> technology is improving all the time.
> 
> many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No our tax dollars should be spent on the energy source that provides the most consistent reliable output not wind which only supplies 25% or less of its rated capacity and what you don't understand is that that measly 25% is provided by the latest and best wind technology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all we need, is a better grid.  you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.
> 
> How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".
Click to expand...


currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil 
nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels 

Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good

Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron
> 
> we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free
> 
> That is nuclear power plain and simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about balancing our energy portfolio and improving technologies; sextuple.  that is what got me interested.
> 
> 
> and is bird safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the question you will not be able to answer.
> 
> 6 times more rated capacity or 6 times more actual energy output?
> 
> And no matter how you slice it wind is at best an intermittent source for power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6 times more than we get from current wind turbine technology.  And, with an upgraded grid, we can connect wind power, Any Where, in the US.
> 
> Chicago (the windy city) seems like a good place to have some advanced wind energy technologies.
Click to expand...


well we get crap from wind now so 6 times crap is still crap.

and there are limitations to how far you can transmit electricity which is another large wind or solar farms in remote areas are not the best answer


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason, our alleged, capitalist in chief, preferred not to finance his own cruiser and merely, "take care of business" in the Middle East.
> 
> That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't say what the reason is so I'll guess your take is wind farms are not investments that pay for themselves, they're purchases like cruisers that we buy and hope we don't have to use them.
> 
> 
> Did I guess right?  I'm not to good at guessing games, if I missed this one then let's just say what we mean --like how you don't want to invest your own money in wind/solar because it doesn't work and I invest my own money in oil because it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State capitalism, a form of socialism, works better than truer forms of capitalism; that is why.
> 
> Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works, and with better technologies and an upgraded grid; we could have cost effective energy to balance our energy portfolio.
> 
> And, I prefer to advance fusion (an energy with a future) over fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works,*
> 
> Excellent news.
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thanks; I like to balance my portfolio; not just invest in fossil fuels.
Click to expand...


Investing in wind doesn't balance your portfolio?


----------



## danielpalos

HenryBHough said:


> Kinda fun watching how the magical renewable pumped storage hydro project is working out for Oroville, California just now.


I am glad we ended our useless, War on Marijuana in California.  We expect around a billion in tax revenue; hopefully, we will be able to afford better maintenance.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take your arguments seriously; simply because you seem to have, lousy reading comprehension.
> 
> technology is improving all the time.
> 
> many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No our tax dollars should be spent on the energy source that provides the most consistent reliable output not wind which only supplies 25% or less of its rated capacity and what you don't understand is that that measly 25% is provided by the latest and best wind technology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all we need, is a better grid.  you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.
> 
> How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil
> nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels
> 
> Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good
> 
> Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation
Click to expand...

Advances in technology is happening all the time.  They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."
> 
> 
> 
> a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron
> 
> we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free
> 
> That is nuclear power plain and simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about balancing our energy portfolio and improving technologies; sextuple.  that is what got me interested.
> 
> 
> and is bird safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the question you will not be able to answer.
> 
> 6 times more rated capacity or 6 times more actual energy output?
> 
> And no matter how you slice it wind is at best an intermittent source for power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6 times more than we get from current wind turbine technology.  And, with an upgraded grid, we can connect wind power, Any Where, in the US.
> 
> Chicago (the windy city) seems like a good place to have some advanced wind energy technologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well we get crap from wind now so 6 times crap is still crap.
> 
> and there are limitations to how far you can transmit electricity which is another large wind or solar farms in remote areas are not the best answer
Click to expand...

An upgraded grid can connect everything better.  In any case, wind power is only one source of energy; and sextuple the amount of current energy being produced, is not, insignificant.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Let's bet the farm on the "Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy" Analysis, whatever it means


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason, our alleged, capitalist in chief, preferred not to finance his own cruiser and merely, "take care of business" in the Middle East.
> 
> That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't say what the reason is so I'll guess your take is wind farms are not investments that pay for themselves, they're purchases like cruisers that we buy and hope we don't have to use them.
> 
> 
> Did I guess right?  I'm not to good at guessing games, if I missed this one then let's just say what we mean --like how you don't want to invest your own money in wind/solar because it doesn't work and I invest my own money in oil because it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State capitalism, a form of socialism, works better than truer forms of capitalism; that is why.
> 
> Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works, and with better technologies and an upgraded grid; we could have cost effective energy to balance our energy portfolio.
> 
> And, I prefer to advance fusion (an energy with a future) over fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works,*
> 
> Excellent news.
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thanks; I like to balance my portfolio; not just invest in fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Investing in wind doesn't balance your portfolio?
Click to expand...

Just attention deficits while claiming you have valid arguments?



> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't say what the reason is so I'll guess your take is wind farms are not investments that pay for themselves, they're purchases like cruisers that we buy and hope we don't have to use them.
> 
> 
> Did I guess right?  I'm not to good at guessing games, if I missed this one then let's just say what we mean --like how you don't want to invest your own money in wind/solar because it doesn't work and I invest my own money in oil because it works.
> 
> 
> 
> State capitalism, a form of socialism, works better than truer forms of capitalism; that is why.
> 
> Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works, and with better technologies and an upgraded grid; we could have cost effective energy to balance our energy portfolio.
> 
> And, I prefer to advance fusion (an energy with a future) over fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works,*
> 
> Excellent news.
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thanks; I like to balance my portfolio; not just invest in fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Investing in wind doesn't balance your portfolio?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just attention deficits while claiming you have valid arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No our tax dollars should be spent on the energy source that provides the most consistent reliable output not wind which only supplies 25% or less of its rated capacity and what you don't understand is that that measly 25% is provided by the latest and best wind technology
> 
> 
> 
> all we need, is a better grid.  you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.
> 
> How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil
> nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels
> 
> Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good
> 
> Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Advances in technology is happening all the time.  They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.
Click to expand...


so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again

so tell me what is the better power generation investment

Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> State capitalism, a form of socialism, works better than truer forms of capitalism; that is why.
> 
> Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works, and with better technologies and an upgraded grid; we could have cost effective energy to balance our energy portfolio.
> 
> And, I prefer to advance fusion (an energy with a future) over fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works,*
> 
> Excellent news.
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thanks; I like to balance my portfolio; not just invest in fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Investing in wind doesn't balance your portfolio?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just attention deficits while claiming you have valid arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?
Click to expand...

No more than twenty percent.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all we need, is a better grid.  you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.
> 
> How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil
> nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels
> 
> Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good
> 
> Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Advances in technology is happening all the time.  They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
> You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again
> 
> so tell me what is the better power generation investment
> 
> Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter; all of our energy will not come from wing power alone; it is Only part of a diversified energy portfolio.

Renewable energy, is what it is about, not fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Technology is improving all the time; wind energy works,*
> 
> Excellent news.
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks; I like to balance my portfolio; not just invest in fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Investing in wind doesn't balance your portfolio?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just attention deficits while claiming you have valid arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more than twenty percent.
Click to expand...


In what stocks?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks; I like to balance my portfolio; not just invest in fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investing in wind doesn't balance your portfolio?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just attention deficits while claiming you have valid arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more than twenty percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what stocks?
Click to expand...

None right now; it is only practice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Investing in wind doesn't balance your portfolio?
> 
> 
> 
> Just attention deficits while claiming you have valid arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should invest all your weed earnings in wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more than twenty percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None right now; it is only practice.
Click to expand...


You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just attention deficits while claiming you have valid arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more than twenty percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None right now; it is only practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?
Click to expand...

It helps if you understand the concepts before sinking any costs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?
> 
> 
> 
> No more than twenty percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None right now; it is only practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps if you understand the concepts before sinking any costs.
Click to expand...


As was said earlier, you want others to invest in wind energy while you invest zero.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more than twenty percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None right now; it is only practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps if you understand the concepts before sinking any costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was said earlier, you want others to invest in wind energy while you invest zero.
Click to expand...

The concept is, balancing a portfolio.  I am not surprised you don't get that simple, capital concept; 

the national socialist right wing, never does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what stocks?
> 
> 
> 
> None right now; it is only practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps if you understand the concepts before sinking any costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was said earlier, you want others to invest in wind energy while you invest zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept is, balancing a portfolio.  I am not surprised you don't get that simple, capital concept;
> 
> the national socialist right wing, never does.
Click to expand...


A guy with no money is telling me about balancing a portfolio? LOL!

Smoke another bowl.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> None right now; it is only practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps if you understand the concepts before sinking any costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was said earlier, you want others to invest in wind energy while you invest zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept is, balancing a portfolio.  I am not surprised you don't get that simple, capital concept;
> 
> the national socialist right wing, never does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A guy with no money is telling me about balancing a portfolio? LOL!
> 
> Smoke another bowl.
Click to expand...

education, what a concept.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?
> 
> 
> 
> It helps if you understand the concepts before sinking any costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was said earlier, you want others to invest in wind energy while you invest zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept is, balancing a portfolio.  I am not surprised you don't get that simple, capital concept;
> 
> the national socialist right wing, never does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A guy with no money is telling me about balancing a portfolio? LOL!
> 
> Smoke another bowl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> education, what a concept.
Click to expand...


Yup....let me know when you get some.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It helps if you understand the concepts before sinking any costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As was said earlier, you want others to invest in wind energy while you invest zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept is, balancing a portfolio.  I am not surprised you don't get that simple, capital concept;
> 
> the national socialist right wing, never does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A guy with no money is telling me about balancing a portfolio? LOL!
> 
> Smoke another bowl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> education, what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup....let me know when you get some.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who has little to no understanding of economics or the law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was said earlier, you want others to invest in wind energy while you invest zero.
> 
> 
> 
> The concept is, balancing a portfolio.  I am not surprised you don't get that simple, capital concept;
> 
> the national socialist right wing, never does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A guy with no money is telling me about balancing a portfolio? LOL!
> 
> Smoke another bowl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> education, what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup....let me know when you get some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who has little to no understanding of economics or the law.
Click to expand...


DERP!


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept is, balancing a portfolio.  I am not surprised you don't get that simple, capital concept;
> 
> the national socialist right wing, never does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A guy with no money is telling me about balancing a portfolio? LOL!
> 
> Smoke another bowl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> education, what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup....let me know when you get some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who has little to no understanding of economics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DERP!
Click to expand...

thank you for proving my point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A guy with no money is telling me about balancing a portfolio? LOL!
> 
> Smoke another bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> education, what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup....let me know when you get some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who has little to no understanding of economics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank you for proving my point.
Click to expand...


I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of someone wanting others to waste their money on wind power, without investing a dime of their own.

And the ridiculousness of one with no money in the market, lecturing me on balancing a portfolio.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> education, what a concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup....let me know when you get some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who has little to no understanding of economics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank you for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of someone wanting others to waste their money on wind power, without investing a dime of their own.
> 
> And the ridiculousness of one with no money in the market, lecturing me on balancing a portfolio.
Click to expand...

that is what, education (what a concept) is about, dear.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup....let me know when you get some.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one who has little to no understanding of economics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank you for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of someone wanting others to waste their money on wind power, without investing a dime of their own.
> 
> And the ridiculousness of one with no money in the market, lecturing me on balancing a portfolio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is what, education (what a concept) is about, dear.
Click to expand...


Yes, the ignorant trying to educate me is a concept, a funny, funny concept.


----------



## danielpalos

Here is some more, "education":


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Here is some more, "education":


Sounds great.
Israeli companies has been working on this idea for about 5 years; I'm still waiting.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money
> 
> 
> 
> The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.
> 
> How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil
> nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels
> 
> Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good
> 
> Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Advances in technology is happening all the time.  They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
> You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again
> 
> so tell me what is the better power generation investment
> 
> Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter; all of our energy will not come from wing power alone; it is Only part of a diversified energy portfolio.
> 
> Renewable energy, is what it is about, not fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Nuclear energy is not fossil fuel

Intermittent power sources (wind) and part time power sources (solar) simply will not meet our growing power needs and are supplemental at best

we need 90% or more of our power to be nuclear generated


----------



## Skull Pilot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just attention deficits while claiming you have valid arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more than twenty percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None right now; it is only practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?
Click to expand...

he's unemployed and lives at home with Mommy so how much do you think he invests?


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some more, "education":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great.
> Israeli companies has been working on this idea for about 5 years; I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

Here is some more "education":


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.
> 
> How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil
> nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels
> 
> Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good
> 
> Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Advances in technology is happening all the time.  They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
> You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again
> 
> so tell me what is the better power generation investment
> 
> Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter; all of our energy will not come from wing power alone; it is Only part of a diversified energy portfolio.
> 
> Renewable energy, is what it is about, not fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear energy is not fossil fuel
> 
> Intermittent power sources (wind) and part time power sources (solar) simply will not meet our growing power needs and are supplemental at best
> 
> we need 90% or more of our power to be nuclear generated
Click to expand...

I prefer fusion (a natural energy with a natural future):


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want others to invest in wind, what percentage of your portfolio is invested in wind energy?
> 
> 
> 
> No more than twenty percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None right now; it is only practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're practicing holding 20% of your portfolio in wind energy with the actual number being 0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's unemployed and lives at home with Mommy so how much do you think he invests?
Click to expand...

dudes; i practiced investing on unemployment, just for fun.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some more, "education":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great.
> Israeli companies has been working on this idea for about 5 years; I'm still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is some more "education":
Click to expand...

Their site does not offer the product yet; it's still in development.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil
> nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels
> 
> Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good
> 
> Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation
> 
> 
> 
> Advances in technology is happening all the time.  They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
> You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again
> 
> so tell me what is the better power generation investment
> 
> Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter; all of our energy will not come from wing power alone; it is Only part of a diversified energy portfolio.
> 
> Renewable energy, is what it is about, not fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear energy is not fossil fuel
> 
> Intermittent power sources (wind) and part time power sources (solar) simply will not meet our growing power needs and are supplemental at best
> 
> we need 90% or more of our power to be nuclear generated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer fusion (a natural energy with a natural future):
Click to expand...

you do know that fusion is nuclear power and also produces radiation don't you?

Besides newer model reactors do not have the faults of the old light water reactors like Fukishima and are all self limiting


----------



## danielpalos

fusion (a natural energy with a natural future), unlike fission. 

and, fusion waste does not last very long.

besides, by mastering fusion (a natural energy with a natural future) we can start to learn how create our own, "RingWorlds", for when our sun goes supernova.


----------



## HenryBHough

I have discovered a means to make electricity from human urine and liberal tears!  Since we have both in abundance all that's lacking if the $2,000,000,000 grant to turn the lab success into industrial scale reality!

Who will fund me?

Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm a liberal Democrat today so, Mr. Gates, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Soros.....give until it hurts (others)!  I know I can count on  you.


----------



## there4eyeM

Fusion is great; it's what the Sun is, and that's all we need and more.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> fusion (a natural energy with a natural future), unlike fission.
> 
> and, fusion waste does not last very long.
> 
> besides, by mastering fusion (a natural energy with a natural future) we can start to learn how create our own, "RingWorlds", for when our sun goes supernova.



I didn't say waste I said radiation

and Fusion right now is a distant pipe dream but we do have the capability to have 100% emission free electricity today with nuclear power

so stop ignoring the good in favor of the perfect


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> Fusion is great; it's what the Sun is, and that's all we need and more.



100% solar power isn't feasible 
Solar at best is  part time supplemental power


----------



## there4eyeM

If only one percent of solar energy were harvested, it would be far more energy than humans use today. People really think humans can't achieve that? It's more than we use and far more than we need, it's decentralized, it's clean, it's amortized over relatively little time and it will help beautify life. It is the long term, wise way to go.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> fusion (a natural energy with a natural future), unlike fission.
> 
> and, fusion waste does not last very long.
> 
> besides, by mastering fusion (a natural energy with a natural future) we can start to learn how create our own, "RingWorlds", for when our sun goes supernova.



Our Sun will never go supernova.


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> If only one percent of solar energy were harvested, it would be far more energy than humans use today. People really think humans can't achieve that? It's more than we use and far more than we need, it's decentralized, it's clean, it's amortized over relatively little time and it will help beautify life. It is the long term, wise way to go.


tell you what when you can run an entire town on 100% solar get back to me

we need to do something right now and our best option for abundant reliable emission free power is nuclear


----------



## danielpalos

HenryBHough said:


> I have discovered a means to make electricity from human urine and liberal tears!  Since we have both in abundance all that's lacking if the $2,000,000,000 grant to turn the lab success into industrial scale reality!
> 
> Who will fund me?
> 
> Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm a liberal Democrat today so, Mr. Gates, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Soros.....give until it hurts (others)!  I know I can count on  you.


too bad you have to be on the right, to insist national security is at stake, lower taxes, and Invade a foreign country.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> fusion (a natural energy with a natural future), unlike fission.
> 
> and, fusion waste does not last very long.
> 
> besides, by mastering fusion (a natural energy with a natural future) we can start to learn how create our own, "RingWorlds", for when our sun goes supernova.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say waste I said radiation
> 
> and Fusion right now is a distant pipe dream but we do have the capability to have 100% emission free electricity today with nuclear power
> 
> so stop ignoring the good in favor of the perfect
Click to expand...

How is our Pacific ocean doing?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fusion is great; it's what the Sun is, and that's all we need and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% solar power isn't feasible
> Solar at best is  part time supplemental power
Click to expand...

just lousy reading comprehension?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> fusion (a natural energy with a natural future), unlike fission.
> 
> and, fusion waste does not last very long.
> 
> besides, by mastering fusion (a natural energy with a natural future) we can start to learn how create our own, "RingWorlds", for when our sun goes supernova.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say waste I said radiation
> 
> and Fusion right now is a distant pipe dream but we do have the capability to have 100% emission free electricity today with nuclear power
> 
> so stop ignoring the good in favor of the perfect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is our Pacific ocean doing?
Click to expand...


Irrelevant as next generation reactors unlike the currently used light water reactors do not have to be placed near large bodies of water, do not run at pressure and cannot ever go critical because they are by design self limiting


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fusion is great; it's what the Sun is, and that's all we need and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% solar power isn't feasible
> Solar at best is  part time supplemental power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy reading comprehension?
Click to expand...


BFD I'm sure you've made more mistakes today than I have

and fusion is decades if not centuries in the future before it's even feasible small scale

so tell me what are you going to do until then?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fusion is great; it's what the Sun is, and that's all we need and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% solar power isn't feasible
> Solar at best is  part time supplemental power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy reading comprehension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BFD I'm sure you've made more mistakes today than I have
> 
> and fusion is decades if not centuries in the future before it's even feasible small scale
> 
> so tell me what are you going to do until then?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't.

And, here is something to, potentially, invest in:



> On Friday, Sept. 30, at 9:25 p.m. EDT, scientists and engineers at MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center made a leap forward in the pursuit of clean energy. The team set a new world record for plasma pressure in the Institute’s Alcator C-Mod tokamak nuclear fusion reactor. Plasma pressure is the key ingredient to producing energy from nuclear fusion, and MIT’s new result achieves over 2 atmospheres of pressure for the first time.--http://news.mit.edu/2016/alcator-c-mod-tokamak-nuclear-fusion-world-record-1014


----------



## anotherlife

The problem with plasma is that it must be contained in some geometry by magnetic field.  The good thing would be if this wasn't necessary and the plasma could still survive even if just for minutes.


----------



## there4eyeM

Interesting that it all always comes back to reliance on an industry that makes thousands of dollars per second in net profit. One might think there is too much political and economic power there.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bullshit meter is nearing the red zone.  Look at the sources of information - advocacy groups.  Solar and wind continue to be - for most of the country - merely novelties, dribbling electrons into a grid that barely notices.  And the grid is powered by burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Shortly after we discover technology that makes us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, leave it to the Leftists to contrive reasons why natural gas is "bad."  It is so fucking predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was brought to you by the oil industry.....
Click to expand...

real world results from the UK and Germany prove that wind is a failure

and really common sense should tell us the same thing
Wind is intermittent
do we really want our power generated by an intermittent source?


----------



## there4eyeM

Do we seriously have to discuss all the possibilities for energy storage? Do we seriously doubt the inventiveness of humankind? Destructive practices destroy; they will stop someday. That can be with intelligent alternatives or otherwise.


----------



## danielpalos

anotherlife said:


> The problem with plasma is that it must be contained in some geometry by magnetic field.  The good thing would be if this wasn't necessary and the plasma could still survive even if just for minutes.


A sun has enormous gravity effect to work with.  We don't until we develop anti-grav and pro-grav.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bullshit meter is nearing the red zone.  Look at the sources of information - advocacy groups.  Solar and wind continue to be - for most of the country - merely novelties, dribbling electrons into a grid that barely notices.  And the grid is powered by burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Shortly after we discover technology that makes us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, leave it to the Leftists to contrive reasons why natural gas is "bad."  It is so fucking predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was brought to you by the oil industry.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> real world results from the UK and Germany prove that wind is a failure
> 
> and really common sense should tell us the same thing
> Wind is intermittent
> do we really want our power generated by an intermittent source?
Click to expand...

special pleading about wind power?  renewables includes more than just wind power.


----------



## danielpalos

there4eyeM said:


> Do we seriously have to discuss all the possibilities for energy storage? Do we seriously doubt the inventiveness of humankind? Destructive practices destroy; they will stop someday. That can be with intelligent alternatives or otherwise.


with an upgraded grid and increased capacitance, we could harness lighting, eventually.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bullshit meter is nearing the red zone.  Look at the sources of information - advocacy groups.  Solar and wind continue to be - for most of the country - merely novelties, dribbling electrons into a grid that barely notices.  And the grid is powered by burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Shortly after we discover technology that makes us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, leave it to the Leftists to contrive reasons why natural gas is "bad."  It is so fucking predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was brought to you by the oil industry.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> real world results from the UK and Germany prove that wind is a failure
> 
> and really common sense should tell us the same thing
> Wind is intermittent
> do we really want our power generated by an intermittent source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading about wind power?  renewables includes more than just wind power.
Click to expand...


solar has its problems too like that it only works during the day


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> Do we seriously have to discuss all the possibilities for energy storage? Do we seriously doubt the inventiveness of humankind? Destructive practices destroy; they will stop someday. That can be with intelligent alternatives or otherwise.



yeah we're so smart we are ignoring the best option we have today for reliable, abundant emission free power


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bullshit meter is nearing the red zone.  Look at the sources of information - advocacy groups.  Solar and wind continue to be - for most of the country - merely novelties, dribbling electrons into a grid that barely notices.  And the grid is powered by burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Shortly after we discover technology that makes us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, leave it to the Leftists to contrive reasons why natural gas is "bad."  It is so fucking predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was brought to you by the oil industry.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> real world results from the UK and Germany prove that wind is a failure
> 
> and really common sense should tell us the same thing
> Wind is intermittent
> do we really want our power generated by an intermittent source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading about wind power?  renewables includes more than just wind power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> solar has its problems too like that it only works during the day
Click to expand...

how about both, in combination?  it is renewable energy unlike fossil fuels which can Only get more expensive.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bullshit meter is nearing the red zone.  Look at the sources of information - advocacy groups.  Solar and wind continue to be - for most of the country - merely novelties, dribbling electrons into a grid that barely notices.  And the grid is powered by burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Shortly after we discover technology that makes us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, leave it to the Leftists to contrive reasons why natural gas is "bad."  It is so fucking predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was brought to you by the oil industry.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> real world results from the UK and Germany prove that wind is a failure
> 
> and really common sense should tell us the same thing
> Wind is intermittent
> do we really want our power generated by an intermittent source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading about wind power?  renewables includes more than just wind power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> solar has its problems too like that it only works during the day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about both, in combination?  it is renewable energy unlike fossil fuels which can Only get more expensive.
Click to expand...


Now who has reading comprehension issues?
I haven't advocated fossil fuels once in this thread


----------



## Skull Pilot

here's the rub 
right now electricity is only 20% of our energy mix.
Wind and solar cannot even come close to meeting that mark anytime in the next 50 years

People want to cut down on GH gas and that means electrifying more of everything from heating to cars and other industrial processes which means electricity has to become the dominant energy source I think 60-70% of all power used

and you think intermittent power generation will allow that?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this was brought to you by the oil industry.....
> 
> 
> 
> real world results from the UK and Germany prove that wind is a failure
> 
> and really common sense should tell us the same thing
> Wind is intermittent
> do we really want our power generated by an intermittent source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading about wind power?  renewables includes more than just wind power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> solar has its problems too like that it only works during the day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about both, in combination?  it is renewable energy unlike fossil fuels which can Only get more expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now who has reading comprehension issues?
> I haven't advocated fossil fuels once in this thread
Click to expand...

i just haven't been paying to your arguments.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> real world results from the UK and Germany prove that wind is a failure
> 
> and really common sense should tell us the same thing
> Wind is intermittent
> do we really want our power generated by an intermittent source?
> 
> 
> 
> special pleading about wind power?  renewables includes more than just wind power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> solar has its problems too like that it only works during the day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about both, in combination?  it is renewable energy unlike fossil fuels which can Only get more expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now who has reading comprehension issues?
> I haven't advocated fossil fuels once in this thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i just haven't been paying to your arguments.
Click to expand...

no you don't pay attention to anything but your own babbling 

Hey maybe that's why you still live with Mommy


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> special pleading about wind power?  renewables includes more than just wind power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> solar has its problems too like that it only works during the day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about both, in combination?  it is renewable energy unlike fossil fuels which can Only get more expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now who has reading comprehension issues?
> I haven't advocated fossil fuels once in this thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i just haven't been paying to your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you don't pay attention to anything but your own babbling
> 
> Hey maybe that's why you still live with Mommy
Click to expand...

no, it is just You.

and, someone has to be responsible.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> solar has its problems too like that it only works during the day
> 
> 
> 
> how about both, in combination?  it is renewable energy unlike fossil fuels which can Only get more expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now who has reading comprehension issues?
> I haven't advocated fossil fuels once in this thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i just haven't been paying to your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you don't pay attention to anything but your own babbling
> 
> Hey maybe that's why you still live with Mommy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it is just You.
> 
> and, someone has to be responsible.
Click to expand...

well we know that's not you since you can't even support yourself


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about both, in combination?  it is renewable energy unlike fossil fuels which can Only get more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now who has reading comprehension issues?
> I haven't advocated fossil fuels once in this thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i just haven't been paying to your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you don't pay attention to anything but your own babbling
> 
> Hey maybe that's why you still live with Mommy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it is just You.
> 
> and, someone has to be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well we know that's not you since you can't even support yourself
Click to expand...

yet, it is You who has to resort to fallacy; just crony capitalism?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now who has reading comprehension issues?
> I haven't advocated fossil fuels once in this thread
> 
> 
> 
> i just haven't been paying to your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you don't pay attention to anything but your own babbling
> 
> Hey maybe that's why you still live with Mommy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it is just You.
> 
> and, someone has to be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well we know that's not you since you can't even support yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, it is You who has to resort to fallacy; just crony capitalism?
Click to expand...

you're the one who admitted that you still have to live with Mommy


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i just haven't been paying to your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> no you don't pay attention to anything but your own babbling
> 
> Hey maybe that's why you still live with Mommy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it is just You.
> 
> and, someone has to be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well we know that's not you since you can't even support yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, it is You who has to resort to fallacy; just crony capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're the one who admitted that you still have to live with Mommy
Click to expand...

proof i am not just a crony.


----------



## there4eyeM

Nuclear is the best way to keep power centralized and in the hands of a priest-like echelon of crucial technicians.


----------



## danielpalos

there4eyeM said:


> Nuclear is the best way to keep power centralized and in the hands of a priest-like echelon of crucial technicians.


i think we should find Arrakis, first.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you don't pay attention to anything but your own babbling
> 
> Hey maybe that's why you still live with Mommy
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is just You.
> 
> and, someone has to be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well we know that's not you since you can't even support yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, it is You who has to resort to fallacy; just crony capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're the one who admitted that you still have to live with Mommy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof i am not just a crony.
Click to expand...

no proof that you're a fucking loser who can't make it on his own


----------



## anotherlife

danielpalos said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with plasma is that it must be contained in some geometry by magnetic field.  The good thing would be if this wasn't necessary and the plasma could still survive even if just for minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> A sun has enormous gravity effect to work with.  We don't until we develop anti-grav and pro-grav.
Click to expand...


Now that is interesting.  Remotely controlling the shape of plasma would be useful.


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> Nuclear is the best way to keep power centralized and in the hands of a priest-like echelon of crucial technicians.



It's also the best way to produce the abundant reliable emission free power we need to meet our ever growing demands

and next generation reactors won't need the infrastructure or manpower our current LWRs do


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is just You.
> 
> and, someone has to be responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> well we know that's not you since you can't even support yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, it is You who has to resort to fallacy; just crony capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're the one who admitted that you still have to live with Mommy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof i am not just a crony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no proof that you're a fucking loser who can't make it on his own
Click to expand...

Only cronies say that.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> well we know that's not you since you can't even support yourself
> 
> 
> 
> yet, it is You who has to resort to fallacy; just crony capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're the one who admitted that you still have to live with Mommy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof i am not just a crony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no proof that you're a fucking loser who can't make it on his own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only cronies say that.
Click to expand...

do you even kn ow what a crony is?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet, it is You who has to resort to fallacy; just crony capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> you're the one who admitted that you still have to live with Mommy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof i am not just a crony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no proof that you're a fucking loser who can't make it on his own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only cronies say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you even kn ow what a crony is?
Click to expand...

sure; the ones who Only have propaganda and rhetoric, instead of Any valid argument.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're the one who admitted that you still have to live with Mommy
> 
> 
> 
> proof i am not just a crony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no proof that you're a fucking loser who can't make it on his own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only cronies say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you even kn ow what a crony is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure; the ones who Only have propaganda and rhetoric, instead of Any valid argument.
Click to expand...

you need to learn how to use a dictionary


----------



## danielpalos

simply upgrading wind energy technology can sextuple output.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
Click to expand...

And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.


----------



## danielpalos

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.
Click to expand...

should it be ok for Firms to go, "over the counter" for funds?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.
Click to expand...

it doesn't

 A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million

that'ss 8 million per MW


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't take your arguments seriously; simply because you seem to have, lousy reading comprehension.
> 
> technology is improving all the time.
> 
> many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No our tax dollars should be spent on the energy source that provides the most consistent reliable output not wind which only supplies 25% or less of its rated capacity and what you don't understand is that that measly 25% is provided by the latest and best wind technology
Click to expand...

Let’s look at the entirety of the week during which the latest wind energy record occurred. Wind energy was producing at exceptional levels for essentially the entirety of December 19 and 20. However, wind production was significantly lower for most of December 18 and December 21. Wind energy is great when the wind is blowing — but it's important to have flexible resources like natural gas or storage in the system that can ramp up when the wind ramps down.







Zooming out further to examine temporal variations in wind energy production over a year, we see that wind energy is not only intermittent from one day to the next, but also tends to produce more in the winter than in the summer, when electricity demand is highest. The data in the figure below are for 2014, because 2015 data are not yet available. 

Texas Sets New All-Time Wind Energy Record






If Oncor and others are allowed to install the grid scale batteries as they wish to, then that jagged line would be considerably smoothed out. Add in the solar that is being added, and they can shut down the coal fired plants permanetly.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much can renewable energy save us?*
> 
> *Since it has the capacity to satisfy human needs in ways that will prevent poisoning ourselves out of existence, it could be said that it will save us everything.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it really doesn't have the capacity to meet our power needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we need a better grid and increased capacitance, to "catch and store" lighting energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron
> 
> we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free
> 
> That is nuclear power plain and simple
Click to expand...

Fukushima, and far too expensive.


----------



## Old Rocks

expat_panama said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
Click to expand...


*People are investing in renewables, big time.*

India
*Renew Power backed by Japanese funding*

15 February 2017 by David Weston , Be the first to comment

INDIA: Major Indian wind developer Renew Power has sold a 10% stake to Japanese investment joint venture Jera for $200 million.





Renew Power operates over 1.5GW of renewable power in India
Jera comprises Japanese power firms Tokyo Electric Power and Chubu Electric Power. Its acquisition of the stake in Renew Power marks Jera's first foray in to the Indian energy sector, as well as its first in renewables.

Renew Power owns around 1.5GW of renewables capacity, with a further 1.8GW under construction, Jera said.

In April 2016, the developer said it was the first company in India to commission 1GW of wind power in the country.

"As a Renew Power shareholder, we will seek to contribute to the company by making available technical, operational, project development, and management experience gained through our global power businesses," said Jera president Yuji Kakimi.

Renew Power backed by Japanese funding


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't
> 
> A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million
> 
> that'ss 8 million per MW
Click to expand...

moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies.  upgrading is the only requirement.


----------



## Old Rocks

HenryBHough said:


> Kinda fun watching how the magical renewable pumped storage hydro project is working out for Oroville, California just now.


Well, if that is your idea of fun, I can easily see why you are a 'Conservative'.


----------



## Old Rocks

CrusaderFrank said:


> Let's bet the farm on the "Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy" Analysis, whatever it means


Don't bother your head trying to figure that out, Frankie boi, beyond your ken.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do.  Don't be a "big chicken."
> 
> 
> 
> a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron
> 
> we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free
> 
> That is nuclear power plain and simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about balancing our energy portfolio and improving technologies; sextuple.  that is what got me interested.
> 
> 
> and is bird safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the question you will not be able to answer.
> 
> 6 times more rated capacity or 6 times more actual energy output?
> 
> And no matter how you slice it wind is at best an intermittent source for power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6 times more than we get from current wind turbine technology.  And, with an upgraded grid, we can connect wind power, Any Where, in the US.
> 
> Chicago (the windy city) seems like a good place to have some advanced wind energy technologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well we get crap from wind now so 6 times crap is still crap.
> 
> and there are limitations to how far you can transmit electricity which is another large wind or solar farms in remote areas are not the best answer
Click to expand...

Why the lies, buddy boy? 

U.S. number one in the world in wind energy production

*U.S. number one in the world in wind energy production*
*Wind supplied Iowa with over 31 percent of its electricity last year*
February 29, 2016

Washington, D.C. — The United States continues to lead the world in wind energy production according to recently released data by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) and by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Over 31 percent of Iowa’s in-state electricity generation came from wind last year – marking another major milestone. This is the first time wind has supplied a state with more than 30 percent of its annual electricity. Iowa, Kansas and South Dakota all generated more than 20 percent of their electricity from wind in 2015.

“The U.S. is blessed with world-class wind resources,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. “We’re tapping into this homegrown resource more than ever thanks to American innovation and U.S. workers building some of the most productive wind turbines in the world. Now more than ever, low-cost, stably-priced, zero-emission wind energy is keeping our air clean and cutting costs for consumers. American wind power is well on its way to supplying 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030.”

“We are proud of Iowa’s leadership in wind energy," said Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who also serves as Chairman of the Governor’s Wind and Solar Energy Coalition. “We’ve seen exponential growth in wind energy and the data released today reinforces what we’ve been seeing in every corner of our state. With potential to jump above 40 percent in the next five years, we are committed to building an even greener Iowa future that will provide our Iowa families with cleaner, renewable energy and job opportunities.”

*Wind produced over 190 million megawatt-hours (MWh) in the U.S. last year, enough electricity for about 17.5 million typical U.S. homes. *China is close behind the U.S. at 185.1 million MWh and followed by third-place Germany at 84.6 MWh. Although China has nearly double the installed wind power capacity as the U.S., strong wind resources and production-based U.S. policy have helped build some of the most productive wind farms in the world. Upgraded transmission infrastructure in the U.S. also helps relieve congestion and bring more low-cost wind energy to the most densely populated parts of the country.

Wind energy supplied 4.7 percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2015, enough electricity to supply the equivalent of all electricity demand in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Solar energy, including utility-scale and distributed solar, generated 0.94 percent of all U.S. electricity in 2015.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all we need, is a better grid.  you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.
> 
> How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil
> nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels
> 
> Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good
> 
> Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Advances in technology is happening all the time.  They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
> You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again
> 
> so tell me what is the better power generation investment
> 
> Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?
Click to expand...

What bullshit you post. Windmills have a very small footprint. In Oregon along the Colombia river, they are in the wheat fields, with wheat growing right up to the concrete. 

And where can I see one of those MSR reactors? Again, the nuclear industry has promised us pie in the sky now for 70 years. And that pie has turned out to be very expensive.


----------



## Old Rocks

there4eyeM said:


> Nuclear is the best way to keep power centralized and in the hands of a priest-like echelon of crucial technicians.


And also most vulnerable to disasters, natural or manmade.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Fukishima

Outdated tech


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear is the best way to keep power centralized and in the hands of a priest-like echelon of crucial technicians.
> 
> 
> 
> And also most vulnerable to disasters, natural or manmade.
Click to expand...


not the newer smaller reactors that can be buried undeground, run at atmosphere, do not require huge amounts of water for cooling and will shut themselves down


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money
> 
> 
> 
> The latest wind technology _sextuples_ the energy output of current wind turbines.  And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.
> 
> How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels?  they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and  about 85% from oil
> nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels
> 
> Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good
> 
> Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Advances in technology is happening all the time.  They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
> You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again
> 
> so tell me what is the better power generation investment
> 
> Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit you post. Windmills have a very small footprint. In Oregon along the Colombia river, they are in the wheat fields, with wheat growing right up to the concrete.
> 
> And where can I see one of those MSR reactors? Again, the nuclear industry has promised us pie in the sky now for 70 years. And that pie has turned out to be very expensive.
Click to expand...


One wind mill has a very small footprint

the millions you need do not

Integral fast reactors and MSRs have been run in trials but the idiots in DC shut down our nuclear program because they believed a Hollywood movie was real life


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.
> 
> _"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged *due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period*."
> 
> 
> "Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."_
> 
> Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
> 
> So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't
> 
> A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million
> 
> that'ss 8 million per MW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies.  upgrading is the only requirement.
Click to expand...


you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?

Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output  you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times  more power


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...
> 
> 
> 
> Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?
> 
> If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress.   The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.
> 
> One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take _your_ money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons.  One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *People are investing in renewables, big time.*
> 
> India
> *Renew Power backed by Japanese funding*
> 
> 15 February 2017 by David Weston , Be the first to comment
> 
> INDIA: Major Indian wind developer Renew Power has sold a 10% stake to Japanese investment joint venture Jera for $200 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Renew Power operates over 1.5GW of renewable power in India
> Jera comprises Japanese power firms Tokyo Electric Power and Chubu Electric Power. Its acquisition of the stake in Renew Power marks Jera's first foray in to the Indian energy sector, as well as its first in renewables.
> 
> Renew Power owns around 1.5GW of renewables capacity, with a further 1.8GW under construction, Jera said.
> 
> In April 2016, the developer said it was the first company in India to commission 1GW of wind power in the country.
> 
> "As a Renew Power shareholder, we will seek to contribute to the company by making available technical, operational, project development, and management experience gained through our global power businesses," said Jera president Yuji Kakimi.
> 
> Renew Power backed by Japanese funding
Click to expand...


Capacity installed is NOT power generated

you can't seem to understand that

!GW of installed wind power is .25 GW of ACTUAL power


----------



## Old Rocks

Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.



People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> technology is improving all the time.  many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output.  that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't
> 
> A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million
> 
> that'ss 8 million per MW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies.  upgrading is the only requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?
> 
> Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output  you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times  more power
Click to expand...

it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.  



> A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/


----------



## mamooth

Skull Pilot said:


> not the newer smaller reactors that can be buried undeground, run at atmosphere, do not require huge amounts of water for cooling and will shut themselves down



The vaporware reactors, you mean.

These new super duper reactors are always just around the corner, and have been for the past 30 years, yet they never arrive.


----------



## there4eyeM

Creativity is the greatest thing about humans, and creative solutions to renewable energy is the sanest, most beautiful way forward.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill
> 
> and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity
> 
> 
> 
> And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't
> 
> A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million
> 
> that'ss 8 million per MW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies.  upgrading is the only requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?
> 
> Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output  you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times  more power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today

no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup

so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?

If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.

According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2  million per MW of installed capacity
so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install

How much do wind turbines cost?

so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce

1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh

National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power

that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads

so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each

or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility

if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista

the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage

now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power

Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too

but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power


----------



## Skull Pilot

mamooth said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the newer smaller reactors that can be buried undeground, run at atmosphere, do not require huge amounts of water for cooling and will shut themselves down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vaporware reactors, you mean.
> 
> These new super duper reactors are always just around the corner, and have been for the past 30 years, yet they never arrive.
Click to expand...

actually there were both molten salt  and fast integral reactors up and running in the 60s into the early 70's but the morons in DC shut down our nuclear program because of a bad Jane Fonda movie


----------



## Skull Pilot

http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't
> 
> A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million
> 
> that'ss 8 million per MW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies.  upgrading is the only requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?
> 
> Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output  you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times  more power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
> it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today
> 
> no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup
> 
> so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?
> 
> If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.
> 
> According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016
> 
> How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2  million per MW of installed capacity
> so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install
> 
> How much do wind turbines cost?
> 
> so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
> With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce
> 
> 1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh
> 
> National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power
> 
> that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads
> 
> so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each
> 
> or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility
> 
> if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
> U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista
> 
> the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage
> 
> now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power
> 
> Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too
> 
> but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power
Click to expand...

it is about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, times six, in this case.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't
> 
> A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million
> 
> that'ss 8 million per MW
> 
> 
> 
> moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies.  upgrading is the only requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?
> 
> Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output  you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times  more power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
> it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today
> 
> no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup
> 
> so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?
> 
> If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.
> 
> According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016
> 
> How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2  million per MW of installed capacity
> so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install
> 
> How much do wind turbines cost?
> 
> so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
> With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce
> 
> 1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh
> 
> National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power
> 
> that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads
> 
> so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each
> 
> or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility
> 
> if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
> U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista
> 
> the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage
> 
> now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power
> 
> Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too
> 
> but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, times six, in this case.
Click to expand...


um no it's not because those wind turbines do not exist

I didn't think you'd be able to understand a post with numbers and mathematical conclusions in it and I was right

and FYI The best way to produce emission free electricity is nuclear power


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies.  upgrading is the only requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?
> 
> Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output  you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times  more power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
> it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today
> 
> no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup
> 
> so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?
> 
> If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.
> 
> According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016
> 
> How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2  million per MW of installed capacity
> so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install
> 
> How much do wind turbines cost?
> 
> so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
> With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce
> 
> 1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh
> 
> National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power
> 
> that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads
> 
> so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each
> 
> or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility
> 
> if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
> U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista
> 
> the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage
> 
> now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power
> 
> Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too
> 
> but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, times six, in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> um no it's not because those wind turbines do not exist
> 
> I didn't think you'd be able to understand a post with numbers and mathematical conclusions in it and I was right
> 
> and FYI The best way to produce emission free electricity is nuclear power
Click to expand...

If you cannot use words, your concept may be simply a fallacy of false analogy or false Cause; not even a law of large numbers, can help you. 

*A Minnesota company has patented a funnel-shaped wind power generator called Invelox that can harness up to six times more energy than conventional turbines.--http://us.tomonews.com/radical-new-wind-turbine-generates-six-times-more-green-energy-than-traditional-turbines-2937288*


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?
> 
> Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output  you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times  more power
> 
> 
> 
> it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
> it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today
> 
> no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup
> 
> so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?
> 
> If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.
> 
> According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016
> 
> How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2  million per MW of installed capacity
> so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install
> 
> How much do wind turbines cost?
> 
> so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
> With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce
> 
> 1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh
> 
> National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power
> 
> that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads
> 
> so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each
> 
> or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility
> 
> if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
> U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista
> 
> the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage
> 
> now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power
> 
> Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too
> 
> but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, times six, in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> um no it's not because those wind turbines do not exist
> 
> I didn't think you'd be able to understand a post with numbers and mathematical conclusions in it and I was right
> 
> and FYI The best way to produce emission free electricity is nuclear power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you cannot use words, your concept may be simply a fallacy of false analogy or false Cause; not even a law of large numbers, can help you.
> 
> *A Minnesota company has patented a funnel-shaped wind power generator called Invelox that can harness up to six times more energy than conventional turbines.--http://us.tomonews.com/radical-new-wind-turbine-generates-six-times-more-green-energy-than-traditional-turbines-2937288*
Click to expand...

 you do know that a patent can be given to a drawing on a piece of paper don't you?

and just because the patent says it can harness up to 6 times more wind energy doesn't mean it actually can since the phrase "up to" isn't specific


----------



## Skull Pilot

and then there's this

Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance

In summary

Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.

The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.

Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.
Click to expand...

And how many other nations have those subsidies? Not only that, I would like to see the subsidies end, solar and wind can make it on their own, now. It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.


Pretty much a description of the miniature nuclear reactors. We are not the only nation with nuclear engineers, yet no other nations are deploying these reactors. They do not exist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many other nations have those subsidies? Not only that, I would like to see the subsidies end, solar and wind can make it on their own, now. It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.
Click to expand...

*
And how many other nations have those subsidies?*

Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies

_Spain accumulated $27 billion in debt subsidizing wind and solar power, __which greatly damaged the country’s economy__. Green energy programs in Spain are estimated to have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, __according to a study by a Spanish scholar funded by the Institute for Energy Research__. Spanish economists determined __that each green job created in the country__ cost taxpayers $770,000. Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only __one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent__.

Spain’s Green Energy Production Crippled Without Subsidy Crutch

The most recent onshore wind farm contracts awarded under the scheme, early last year, were at prices of about £80 per megawatt hour (MWh) – more than double current market prices of about £35/MWh. Consumers will fund the difference through green levies on their energy bills.

Revealed: the great wind farm tax 'con'_

*It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.*

_The average German __pays 39 cents per kilowatt-hour__ for electricity due to intense fiscal support for green energy. The average American only spends 10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour._

Shouldn't all that cheap wind and solar give Germany rates cheaper than ours rather than nearly 4 times ours?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much a description of the miniature nuclear reactors. We are not the only nation with nuclear engineers, yet no other nations are deploying these reactors. They do not exist.
Click to expand...


We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.


darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there. 

However, technology is still, improving all the time.  

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many other nations have those subsidies? Not only that, I would like to see the subsidies end, solar and wind can make it on their own, now. It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And how many other nations have those subsidies?*
> 
> Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies
> 
> _Spain accumulated $27 billion in debt subsidizing wind and solar power, __which greatly damaged the country’s economy__. Green energy programs in Spain are estimated to have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, __according to a study by a Spanish scholar funded by the Institute for Energy Research__. Spanish economists determined __that each green job created in the country__ cost taxpayers $770,000. Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only __one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent__.
> 
> Spain’s Green Energy Production Crippled Without Subsidy Crutch
> 
> The most recent onshore wind farm contracts awarded under the scheme, early last year, were at prices of about £80 per megawatt hour (MWh) – more than double current market prices of about £35/MWh. Consumers will fund the difference through green levies on their energy bills.
> 
> Revealed: the great wind farm tax 'con'_
> 
> *It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.*
> 
> _The average German __pays 39 cents per kilowatt-hour__ for electricity due to intense fiscal support for green energy. The average American only spends 10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour._
> 
> Shouldn't all that cheap wind and solar give Germany rates cheaper than ours rather than nearly 4 times ours?
Click to expand...

it will, eventually.  startups cost until profitable.  same with new technologies.

we would not have fission, but the for the _Immense_ support from a Manhattan Project, before we even considered going to the Moon.



> The project expenditure through 1 October 1945 was $1.845 billion, equivalent to less than nine days of wartime spending, and was $2.191 billion when the AEC assumed control on 1 January 1947. Total allocation was $2.4 billion. Over 90% of the cost was for building plants and producing the fissionable materials, and less than 10% for development and production of the weapons.[316][317]
> 
> A total of four weapons (the Trinity gadget, Little Boy, Fat Man, and an unused bomb) were produced by the end of 1945, making the average cost per bomb around $500 million in 1945 dollars. By comparison, the project's total cost by the end of 1945 was about 90% of the total spent on the production of US small arms (not including ammunition) and 34% of the total spent on US tanks during the same period.[315]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Cost


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many other nations have those subsidies? Not only that, I would like to see the subsidies end, solar and wind can make it on their own, now. It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And how many other nations have those subsidies?*
> 
> Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies
> 
> _Spain accumulated $27 billion in debt subsidizing wind and solar power, __which greatly damaged the country’s economy__. Green energy programs in Spain are estimated to have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, __according to a study by a Spanish scholar funded by the Institute for Energy Research__. Spanish economists determined __that each green job created in the country__ cost taxpayers $770,000. Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only __one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent__.
> 
> Spain’s Green Energy Production Crippled Without Subsidy Crutch
> 
> The most recent onshore wind farm contracts awarded under the scheme, early last year, were at prices of about £80 per megawatt hour (MWh) – more than double current market prices of about £35/MWh. Consumers will fund the difference through green levies on their energy bills.
> 
> Revealed: the great wind farm tax 'con'_
> 
> *It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.*
> 
> _The average German __pays 39 cents per kilowatt-hour__ for electricity due to intense fiscal support for green energy. The average American only spends 10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour._
> 
> Shouldn't all that cheap wind and solar give Germany rates cheaper than ours rather than nearly 4 times ours?
Click to expand...

That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more. The economies of scale and the amount of research that decreased the prices of solar and wind.







World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many other nations have those subsidies? Not only that, I would like to see the subsidies end, solar and wind can make it on their own, now. It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And how many other nations have those subsidies?*
> 
> Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies
> 
> _Spain accumulated $27 billion in debt subsidizing wind and solar power, __which greatly damaged the country’s economy__. Green energy programs in Spain are estimated to have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, __according to a study by a Spanish scholar funded by the Institute for Energy Research__. Spanish economists determined __that each green job created in the country__ cost taxpayers $770,000. Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only __one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent__.
> 
> Spain’s Green Energy Production Crippled Without Subsidy Crutch
> 
> The most recent onshore wind farm contracts awarded under the scheme, early last year, were at prices of about £80 per megawatt hour (MWh) – more than double current market prices of about £35/MWh. Consumers will fund the difference through green levies on their energy bills.
> 
> Revealed: the great wind farm tax 'con'_
> 
> *It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.*
> 
> _The average German __pays 39 cents per kilowatt-hour__ for electricity due to intense fiscal support for green energy. The average American only spends 10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour._
> 
> Shouldn't all that cheap wind and solar give Germany rates cheaper than ours rather than nearly 4 times ours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more. The economies of scale and the amount of research that decreased the prices of solar and wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind
Click to expand...

*
That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more.*

They stupidly wasted money on "green energy" in the past.
If they had waited until now, their rates would be lower than ours?

When will we see Germany's rates, for instance, drop from 4 times the rates in the US down to merely double our rates? Soon? Never?

Let's hear your prediction.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
Click to expand...


it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?


----------



## mamooth

Skull Pilot said:


> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program



Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.

Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.


----------



## Skull Pilot

mamooth said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.
> 
> Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.
Click to expand...


It was safe
safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
both were proven to completely self limiting

Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale

The pluses are many

No need for large amounts of water for cooling
runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
is self limiting
can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
can be buried underground
will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365


----------



## expat_panama

mamooth said:


> ...Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor





Skull Pilot said:


> It was safe...


What usually seems to happen is that the green criteria for "safe" when it comes to nukes ends up being that if it's possible then it's by definition "unsafe".


----------



## Skull Pilot

expat_panama said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was safe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What usually seems to happen is that the green criteria for "safe" when it comes to nukes ends up being that if it's possible then it's by definition "unsafe".
Click to expand...


nuclear is our best option for the reliable abundant emission free power we need now and in foreseeable future.

I love how all these science loving renewable people discard nuclear science with no more thought than they give turning on a light


----------



## expat_panama

Skull Pilot said:


> ...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...


What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.

Just like nukes.  They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

expat_panama said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...
> 
> 
> 
> What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.
> 
> Just like nukes.  They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.
Click to expand...


And they say CO2 is the worst thing ever...gonna kill us all...but nuclear is worse.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
Click to expand...

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
Click to expand...

Silly ass, if the windmill produces electricity at half the cost of the coal fired plant, then it is a good investment. Not only that, the dropping cost of the grid storage batteries will make both solar and wind 24/7.


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...
> 
> 
> 
> What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.
> 
> Just like nukes.  They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they say CO2 is the worst thing ever...gonna kill us all...but nuclear is worse.
Click to expand...

Fukushima, and nuclear is damned expensive electricity.


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many other nations have those subsidies? Not only that, I would like to see the subsidies end, solar and wind can make it on their own, now. It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And how many other nations have those subsidies?*
> 
> Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies
> 
> _Spain accumulated $27 billion in debt subsidizing wind and solar power, __which greatly damaged the country’s economy__. Green energy programs in Spain are estimated to have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, __according to a study by a Spanish scholar funded by the Institute for Energy Research__. Spanish economists determined __that each green job created in the country__ cost taxpayers $770,000. Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only __one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent__.
> 
> Spain’s Green Energy Production Crippled Without Subsidy Crutch
> 
> The most recent onshore wind farm contracts awarded under the scheme, early last year, were at prices of about £80 per megawatt hour (MWh) – more than double current market prices of about £35/MWh. Consumers will fund the difference through green levies on their energy bills.
> 
> Revealed: the great wind farm tax 'con'_
> 
> *It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.*
> 
> _The average German __pays 39 cents per kilowatt-hour__ for electricity due to intense fiscal support for green energy. The average American only spends 10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour._
> 
> Shouldn't all that cheap wind and solar give Germany rates cheaper than ours rather than nearly 4 times ours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more. The economies of scale and the amount of research that decreased the prices of solar and wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more.*
> 
> They stupidly wasted money on "green energy" in the past.
> If they had waited until now, their rates would be lower than ours?
> 
> When will we see Germany's rates, for instance, drop from 4 times the rates in the US down to merely double our rates? Soon? Never?
> 
> Let's hear your prediction.
Click to expand...

No, they did not. And you might have a look at what the latitude of Germany is. Solar is fine there in the summer, not so good in the winter. The large array solar panel setups in Germany and many other places created the demand and competition in the solar industry that has resulted in the very cheap panels of today. Not money wasted at all, in the larger view. 

Here in the US, where we have been putting a lot of renewables on the grid, the increase in costs has been less steep than where we have not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...
> 
> 
> 
> What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.
> 
> Just like nukes.  They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they say CO2 is the worst thing ever...gonna kill us all...but nuclear is worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fukushima, and nuclear is damned expensive electricity.
Click to expand...


Yeah, let's not use 50 year old technology, in a tidal wave exposed area with emergency generators on the ground floors. Good point.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.
> 
> Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was safe
> safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
> both were proven to completely self limiting
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale
> 
> The pluses are many
> 
> No need for large amounts of water for cooling
> runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
> is self limiting
> can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
> can be buried underground
> will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
> and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365
Click to expand...

Crap!  We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced. 

In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.
> 
> 
> 
> And how many other nations have those subsidies? Not only that, I would like to see the subsidies end, solar and wind can make it on their own, now. It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And how many other nations have those subsidies?*
> 
> Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies
> 
> _Spain accumulated $27 billion in debt subsidizing wind and solar power, __which greatly damaged the country’s economy__. Green energy programs in Spain are estimated to have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, __according to a study by a Spanish scholar funded by the Institute for Energy Research__. Spanish economists determined __that each green job created in the country__ cost taxpayers $770,000. Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only __one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent__.
> 
> Spain’s Green Energy Production Crippled Without Subsidy Crutch
> 
> The most recent onshore wind farm contracts awarded under the scheme, early last year, were at prices of about £80 per megawatt hour (MWh) – more than double current market prices of about £35/MWh. Consumers will fund the difference through green levies on their energy bills.
> 
> Revealed: the great wind farm tax 'con'_
> 
> *It was a good program to get both industries started, but is no longer needed, now that both solar and wind produce electricity far cheaper than do natural gas or coal.*
> 
> _The average German __pays 39 cents per kilowatt-hour__ for electricity due to intense fiscal support for green energy. The average American only spends 10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour._
> 
> Shouldn't all that cheap wind and solar give Germany rates cheaper than ours rather than nearly 4 times ours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more. The economies of scale and the amount of research that decreased the prices of solar and wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> That cheap wind and solar are the present prices. The past prices were far more.*
> 
> They stupidly wasted money on "green energy" in the past.
> If they had waited until now, their rates would be lower than ours?
> 
> When will we see Germany's rates, for instance, drop from 4 times the rates in the US down to merely double our rates? Soon? Never?
> 
> Let's hear your prediction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they did not. And you might have a look at what the latitude of Germany is. Solar is fine there in the summer, not so good in the winter. The large array solar panel setups in Germany and many other places created the demand and competition in the solar industry that has resulted in the very cheap panels of today. Not money wasted at all, in the larger view.
> 
> Here in the US, where we have been putting a lot of renewables on the grid, the increase in costs has been less steep than where we have not.
Click to expand...


*No, they did not.*

Their excellent investments are what led to their rates being 4 times ours?
Good to know.

*And you might have a look at what the latitude of Germany is. Solar is fine there in the summer, not so good in the winter.*

Hmmmm.....sounds like a crappy investment again.
Maybe they should have looked at their latitude?


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...
> 
> 
> 
> What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.
> 
> Just like nukes.  They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they say CO2 is the worst thing ever...gonna kill us all...but nuclear is worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fukushima, and nuclear is damned expensive electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's not use 50 year old technology, in a tidal wave exposed area with emergency generators on the ground floors. Good point.
Click to expand...

*And how many reactors do we have here in the US with similar unrecognized vulnerabilities? Like many of the spent rod ponds have five times the number of rods in them as they were designed for. Many are in the area affected by the Quake of 1812. Are they designed for that kind of stress? Have we looked with the new technologies for hidden faults? *

PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant

Under the proposal, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County would be retired by PG&E after its current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating licenses expire in November 2024 and August 2025.

The power produced by Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors would be replaced with investment in a greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage, PG&E said. The proposal is contingent on a number of regulatory actions, including approvals from the California Public Utilities Commission.


The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built against a seaside cliff near Avila Beach, provides 2,160 megawatts of electricity for Central and Northern California — enough to power more than 1.7 million homes.

Tuesday’s announcement comes after a long debate over the fate of the plant, which sits near several earthquake fault lines. The Hosgri Fault, located three miles from Diablo Canyon, was discovered in 1971, three years after construction of the plant began.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...science loving renewable people discard nuclear science...
> 
> 
> 
> What happens to me is I find myself in a very awkward position at family reunions when my left-wing kin say that using petro-fuels is immoral --even while they themselves are buying and using gasoline.
> 
> Just like nukes.  They say it's wrong to use it while I watch them use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they say CO2 is the worst thing ever...gonna kill us all...but nuclear is worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fukushima, and nuclear is damned expensive electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's not use 50 year old technology, in a tidal wave exposed area with emergency generators on the ground floors. Good point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And how many reactors do we have here in the US with similar unrecognized vulnerabilities? Like many of the spent rod ponds have five times the number of rods in them as they were designed for. Many are in the area affected by the Quake of 1812. Are they designed for that kind of stress? Have we looked with the new technologies for hidden faults? *
> 
> PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant
> 
> Under the proposal, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County would be retired by PG&E after its current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating licenses expire in November 2024 and August 2025.
> 
> The power produced by Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors would be replaced with investment in a greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage, PG&E said. The proposal is contingent on a number of regulatory actions, including approvals from the California Public Utilities Commission.
> 
> 
> The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built against a seaside cliff near Avila Beach, provides 2,160 megawatts of electricity for Central and Northern California — enough to power more than 1.7 million homes.
> 
> Tuesday’s announcement comes after a long debate over the fate of the plant, which sits near several earthquake fault lines. The Hosgri Fault, located three miles from Diablo Canyon, was discovered in 1971, three years after construction of the plant began.
Click to expand...


*Like many of the spent rod ponds have five times the number of rods in them as they were designed for.*

Who is to blame for that?
*
The power produced by Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors would be replaced with investment in a greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage*

At least their brownouts will be green......


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.
Click to expand...


you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly ass, if the windmill produces electricity at half the cost of the coal fired plant, then it is a good investment. Not only that, the dropping cost of the grid storage batteries will make both solar and wind 24/7.
Click to expand...


Sorry but the only reason to build windmills are the tax subsidies

Warren Buffet, the left's favorite Wall street mogul agrees


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.
> 
> Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was safe
> safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
> both were proven to completely self limiting
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale
> 
> The pluses are many
> 
> No need for large amounts of water for cooling
> runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
> is self limiting
> can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
> can be buried underground
> will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
> and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap!  We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.
> 
> In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.
Click to expand...


Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech.  We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting

but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see

and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too


----------



## Skull Pilot

Pandora's Promise

The Great Green Meltdown  -- How Economic Arguments Against Nuclear Highlight Environmentalist Delusions

Top Climate Scientists Urge Support of Nuclear Power  -- Letter Calls for ‘Fresh Approach’ to Nuclear in the 21st Century


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*



I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need
Click to expand...

with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.
Click to expand...


it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds


----------



## Skull Pilot

sealybobo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
Click to expand...

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%


----------



## sealybobo

Skull Pilot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
Click to expand...

I challenge those numbers. 1℅ oil?


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need
Click to expand...

And you cannot seem to understand that we have the technology to make that intermittent power 24/7.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.
> 
> Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was safe
> safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
> both were proven to completely self limiting
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale
> 
> The pluses are many
> 
> No need for large amounts of water for cooling
> runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
> is self limiting
> can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
> can be buried underground
> will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
> and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap!  We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.
> 
> In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech.  We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting
> 
> but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see
> 
> and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too
Click to expand...



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

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

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

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

This means that new investments and building long-distance transmission lines are done as lawmakers and state regulators see fit, in contrast to the political fighting that often block other ambitious long-distance transmission projects that must cross state lines. "Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."

*I guess you should explain all of that to those ultra-liberal Texans.*


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.
> 
> Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was safe
> safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
> both were proven to completely self limiting
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale
> 
> The pluses are many
> 
> No need for large amounts of water for cooling
> runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
> is self limiting
> can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
> can be buried underground
> will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
> and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap!  We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.
> 
> In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech.  We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting
> 
> but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see
> 
> and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But, you should know that Texas produces about four times more wind power than 3rd place California and three times more than 2nd place Iowa. Pretty amazing for Texas, an energy juggernaut that also supplies about 28% of our natural gas and 37% of our crude oil. Texas has surged its wind power capacity 80% to 18,000 megawatts since 2010, with actual wind generation more than doubling over that time.
> 
> There are more than 10,000 wind turbines in Texas, and at times last winter, wind supplied 40-50% of the state’s electricity. The Great Texas Wind Boom has all come without much help from legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who backed out of his grandiose wind plans in the state.
> The Great Texas Wind Power Boom
> 
> Texas now produces more wind power alone than 25 U.S. states produce from all power sources combined!
> 
> Although you can read "6 Reasons Why Texas Leads the Nation in Wind Power" for yourself, one advantage for Texas is that it's the only U.S. state with its own power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which covers about 75% of the state.
> 
> This means that new investments and building long-distance transmission lines are done as lawmakers and state regulators see fit, in contrast to the political fighting that often block other ambitious long-distance transmission projects that must cross state lines. "Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."
> 
> *I guess you should explain all of that to those ultra-liberal Texans.*
Click to expand...


Republican idiots deny global warming meanwhile the corporations just didn't want to pay to clean up their pollution.  Seems pretty obvious to me.  And instead of admitting it they continue to deny but slowly you see red states embracing the green technology they mocked.  

Like I said yesterday, thanks Solyndra for paving the way.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you cannot seem to understand that we have the technology to make that intermittent power 24/7.
Click to expand...


Yes convert the AC to DC then convert the Dc to AC and transmit it over very long distances and then still need fossil fuel power generation to make up the difference


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.
> 
> Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was safe
> safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
> both were proven to completely self limiting
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale
> 
> The pluses are many
> 
> No need for large amounts of water for cooling
> runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
> is self limiting
> can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
> can be buried underground
> will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
> and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap!  We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.
> 
> In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech.  We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting
> 
> but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see
> 
> and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But, you should know that Texas produces about four times more wind power than 3rd place California and three times more than 2nd place Iowa. Pretty amazing for Texas, an energy juggernaut that also supplies about 28% of our natural gas and 37% of our crude oil. Texas has surged its wind power capacity 80% to 18,000 megawatts since 2010, with actual wind generation more than doubling over that time.
> 
> There are more than 10,000 wind turbines in Texas, and at times last winter, wind supplied 40-50% of the state’s electricity. The Great Texas Wind Boom has all come without much help from legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who backed out of his grandiose wind plans in the state.
> The Great Texas Wind Power Boom
> 
> Texas now produces more wind power alone than 25 U.S. states produce from all power sources combined!
> 
> Although you can read "6 Reasons Why Texas Leads the Nation in Wind Power" for yourself, one advantage for Texas is that it's the only U.S. state with its own power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which covers about 75% of the state.
> 
> This means that new investments and building long-distance transmission lines are done as lawmakers and state regulators see fit, in contrast to the political fighting that often block other ambitious long-distance transmission projects that must cross state lines. "Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."
> 
> *I guess you should explain all of that to those ultra-liberal Texans.*
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter wind has not succeeded anywhere in Europe there is no reason to think it will be any different here


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
> and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds
Click to expand...

we have a lot of land.  a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
Click to expand...

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.


----------



## danielpalos

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.
> 
> Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was safe
> safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
> both were proven to completely self limiting
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale
> 
> The pluses are many
> 
> No need for large amounts of water for cooling
> runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
> is self limiting
> can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
> can be buried underground
> will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
> and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap!  We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.
> 
> In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech.  We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting
> 
> but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see
> 
> and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But, you should know that Texas produces about four times more wind power than 3rd place California and three times more than 2nd place Iowa. Pretty amazing for Texas, an energy juggernaut that also supplies about 28% of our natural gas and 37% of our crude oil. Texas has surged its wind power capacity 80% to 18,000 megawatts since 2010, with actual wind generation more than doubling over that time.
> 
> There are more than 10,000 wind turbines in Texas, and at times last winter, wind supplied 40-50% of the state’s electricity. The Great Texas Wind Boom has all come without much help from legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who backed out of his grandiose wind plans in the state.
> The Great Texas Wind Power Boom
> 
> Texas now produces more wind power alone than 25 U.S. states produce from all power sources combined!
> 
> Although you can read "6 Reasons Why Texas Leads the Nation in Wind Power" for yourself, one advantage for Texas is that it's the only U.S. state with its own power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which covers about 75% of the state.
> 
> This means that new investments and building long-distance transmission lines are done as lawmakers and state regulators see fit, in contrast to the political fighting that often block other ambitious long-distance transmission projects that must cross state lines. "Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."
> 
> *I guess you should explain all of that to those ultra-liberal Texans.*
Click to expand...

California is working on its grid; i am glad we legalized pot, so potheads can help out, as easily and conveniently, as paying a simple tax.

_California, with a score of 88, ranks first in the Customer Engagement category (as it did in the previous GMI), and second in both State Support and Grid Operations. California has a nearly seven-point lead over second-place Illinois, while Texas (which was neck and neck with California for the top score in the previous GMI) ranks third--https://businessfacilities.com/2016/02/california-illinois-texas-lead-the-charge-toward-a-modernized-electric-grid/_


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
Click to expand...


That's right.  And what we know is wind and solar are showing great promise.  Even dried up old coal towns who can't grow anything on that soil once they've stipped the land of all the coal are considering becoming a place where companies put up wind mills and solar panels.  Why not?  There's nothing else to look at in Appalachia.  LOL.

Just kidding.  Beautiful country





But google Appalachia people and what pops up?





So those woods are beautiful but I wouldn't go in them.

Last guy who did regretted it


----------



## danielpalos

don't complain; be happy and Patriotic.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> 
> 
> we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
> and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a lot of land.  a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.
Click to expand...


when you understand power transmission and the losses involved over long distances let me know.

we will be far more secure with local generation plants than we will with a power grid based on transmission from remote areas over long distances


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
Click to expand...


it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?


----------



## HenryBHough

danielpalos said:


> simply upgrading wind energy technology can sextuple output.



And the flying broken vanes will be able to kill people six times as far away?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
> and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a lot of land.  a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you understand power transmission and the losses involved over long distances let me know.
> 
> we will be far more secure with local generation plants than we will with a power grid based on transmission from remote areas over long distances
Click to expand...

Upgrading substations can solve our problem.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
Click to expand...

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.


----------



## danielpalos

HenryBHough said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply upgrading wind energy technology can sextuple output.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flying broken vanes will be able to kill people six times as far away?
Click to expand...

that particular model was still in development.  however, architects may have more to work with.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
Click to expand...

No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need
> 
> 
> 
> with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
> and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a lot of land.  a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you understand power transmission and the losses involved over long distances let me know.
> 
> we will be far more secure with local generation plants than we will with a power grid based on transmission from remote areas over long distances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading substations can solve our problem.
Click to expand...


that will not address the problems of transmission over long distances

you do realize that a power grid based on long distance transmission of power is more vulnerable to failure or attack than a power grid with  redundant generation capabilities where power is produced and transmitted in small areas don;t you?

and I will still mention the fact that wind will never produce the smooth abundant power 24/7/365 that a nuclear power plant will


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.
Click to expand...


still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated

wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?

Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
Click to expand...

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power


----------



## Skull Pilot

_What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?

California is one of the most aggressive in pushing so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring the state to consume 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Overall electricity prices in states with RPS are 38% higher than those without, according to the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group that promotes free markets.

The cost of building new transmission lines ranges from $15 to $27 per megawatt-hour.

federal and state policies add an average of $23 per megawatt-hour to the cost of wind power.

The best estimate available for the total cost of wind power is $149 per megawatt-hour, taken from Giberson’s 2013 report._

Doesn't seem like wind is very cheap to me


----------



## sealybobo

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> 
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
Click to expand...

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.


----------



## Skull Pilot

sealybobo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> 
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
Click to expand...

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
> and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a lot of land.  a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you understand power transmission and the losses involved over long distances let me know.
> 
> we will be far more secure with local generation plants than we will with a power grid based on transmission from remote areas over long distances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading substations can solve our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that will not address the problems of transmission over long distances
> 
> you do realize that a power grid based on long distance transmission of power is more vulnerable to failure or attack than a power grid with  redundant generation capabilities where power is produced and transmitted in small areas don;t you?
> 
> and I will still mention the fact that wind will never produce the smooth abundant power 24/7/365 that a nuclear power plant will
Click to expand...

I am advocating for underground, "conduits to markets"; operated by the public sector for the ease and convenience, of the private sector.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> 
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated
> 
> wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?
> 
> Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal
Click to expand...

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> 
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
Click to expand...

we have plenty of underutilized, aqueducts.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> _What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
> 
> California is one of the most aggressive in pushing so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring the state to consume 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Overall electricity prices in states with RPS are 38% higher than those without, according to the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group that promotes free markets.
> 
> The cost of building new transmission lines ranges from $15 to $27 per megawatt-hour.
> 
> federal and state policies add an average of $23 per megawatt-hour to the cost of wind power.
> 
> The best estimate available for the total cost of wind power is $149 per megawatt-hour, taken from Giberson’s 2013 report._
> 
> Doesn't seem like wind is very cheap to me


Capital intensive costs should go down, once the infrastructure is established.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
Click to expand...

are you a stakeholder in the Arms sector?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> 
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated
> 
> wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?
> 
> Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.
Click to expand...

so you're a denier
good to know

if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> 
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you a stakeholder in the Arms sector?
Click to expand...


If you knew anything about nuclear weapons you would now that reactor fuel isn't even close to weapons grade

If you knew anything about next generation reactors you would know that they use the spent fuel from all of our outdated light water reactors that we currently don't know what to do with


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated
> 
> wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?
> 
> Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
Click to expand...

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

wind _power_ is simply that, dear.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you a stakeholder in the Arms sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about nuclear weapons you would now that reactor fuel isn't even close to weapons grade
> 
> If you knew anything about next generation reactors you would know that they use the spent fuel from all of our outdated light water reactors that we currently don't know what to do with
Click to expand...

not even, depleted radioactive stuff?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated
> 
> wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?
> 
> Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
Click to expand...


why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> 
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you a stakeholder in the Arms sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about nuclear weapons you would now that reactor fuel isn't even close to weapons grade
> 
> If you knew anything about next generation reactors you would know that they use the spent fuel from all of our outdated light water reactors that we currently don't know what to do with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not even, depleted radioactive stuff?
Click to expand...


look up weapons grade nuclear material


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> _What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
> 
> California is one of the most aggressive in pushing so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring the state to consume 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Overall electricity prices in states with RPS are 38% higher than those without, according to the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group that promotes free markets.
> 
> The cost of building new transmission lines ranges from $15 to $27 per megawatt-hour.
> 
> federal and state policies add an average of $23 per megawatt-hour to the cost of wind power.
> 
> The best estimate available for the total cost of wind power is $149 per megawatt-hour, taken from Giberson’s 2013 report._
> 
> Doesn't seem like wind is very cheap to me


Since there are plenty of sources for the present cost of wind per mw/hr, why do you chose to use one that is nearly four years old?


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
Click to expand...

I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
> 
> California is one of the most aggressive in pushing so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring the state to consume 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Overall electricity prices in states with RPS are 38% higher than those without, according to the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group that promotes free markets.
> 
> The cost of building new transmission lines ranges from $15 to $27 per megawatt-hour.
> 
> federal and state policies add an average of $23 per megawatt-hour to the cost of wind power.
> 
> The best estimate available for the total cost of wind power is $149 per megawatt-hour, taken from Giberson’s 2013 report._
> 
> Doesn't seem like wind is very cheap to me
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are plenty of sources for the present cost of wind per mw/hr, why do you chose to use one that is nearly four years old?
Click to expand...


because it's based on real data not merely "installed capacity" which are the only numbers you use


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> 
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
Click to expand...


wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?
> 
> 
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
Click to expand...

The U.S. is helping China build a novel, superior nuclear reactor

well it seems like China and Canada both have plans to build one in and the US DOE is helping them.  So rather than taking the lead and building one ourselves so as to gain a global foothold on the tech, we in our uniquely shortsighted way will help someone else do it at some great expense and then come late to the party simply because we don't have the political will to take the lead

_Under director Alvin Weinberg, Oak Ridge had built and run a small, experimental version of the so-called molten-salt reactor for five years. It wasn't perfect but it was a good start, and inventor Weinberg was preparing to improve it. Then Nixon's axe fell, leaving Oak Ridge all dressed up and nowhere to go as the keeper of a valuable, clean, safe nuclear energy technology—a technology that today could go a long way toward moving the world onto a much needed source of power that doesn't emit carbon dioxide.

Decades later, the U.S. Department of Energy (which owns Oak Ridge) is slowly reawakening to Weinberg's vision. But this time, rather than build a molten-salt reactor itself—the country currently lacks the political will and funding to do so—the U.S. is helping others.

Fortune has learned that DOE plans to sign a 10-year collaboration agreement with China to help that country build at least one molten-salt machine within the next decade. And in a smaller development, Oak Ridge publicly announced in January that it will advise Terrestrial Energy, a privately held Canadian start-up, on development of a molten-salt reactor that draws on Weinberg designs and on the reactor scheme that briefly hatched at Oak Ridge after Weinberg left._


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated
> 
> wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?
> 
> Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year
Click to expand...

if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.  

the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic.  That is why.


----------



## sealybobo

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
Click to expand...

But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> 
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
Click to expand...

*
But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*

If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?


----------



## Old Rocks

*It is not more expensive. It is also getting less expensive every day, while coal is getting more expensive every day. Not just in money, but also in destruction of environment. *

Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas

*2. Wind & Solar Are Actually Even Much Cheaper Than Dirty Energy (More So Than Lazard Shows)*
The estimates above are supposedly “unsubsidized,” but if you include social externalities as societal subsidies (I do), the estimated costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy are _hugely_ subsidized in those charts.

A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9¢/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27¢/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.

The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart.

On the renewable front, costs to overcome intermittency of renewable energy sources (basically, presuming a very high penetration of renewables on the grid) are also not included. Once that is a significant issue (at which point solar and wind will be even cheaper), low-cost demand response solutions, greater grid integration, and storage will be key solutions to integrating these lower-cost renewable sources to a high degree.

Back to Lazard’s assumptions, note that the IGCC and coal cost estimates do not include the costs of transportation and storage.

Given these assumptions unrealistically favoring fossil fuels and nuclear energy, including subsidies for solar and wind is actually an even better way to look at costs of these electricity options. However, if you included _historical_ subsidies as well — coal, natural gas, and nuclear have received a _ton_ (well, many, many tons of subsidies) — dirty energy options would again look worse. In any case, here’s Lazard’s cost comparisons with current subsidies:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

*It is not more expensive.
*
Right. That's why every place that has a lot of it, has more expensive, not less expensive, electricity.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance
> 
> In summary
> 
> Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.
> 
> The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.
> 
> Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.
> 
> 
> 
> darn.
> 
> There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.
> 
> However, technology is still, improving all the time.
> 
> Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill
> 
> how can you think that is a good investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly ass, if the windmill produces electricity at half the cost of the coal fired plant, then it is a good investment. Not only that, the dropping cost of the grid storage batteries will make both solar and wind 24/7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but the only reason to build windmills are the tax subsidies
> 
> Warren Buffet, the left's favorite Wall street mogul agrees
Click to expand...

technology is improving all the time.  it is still free.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.
> 
> Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was safe
> safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
> both were proven to completely self limiting
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale
> 
> The pluses are many
> 
> No need for large amounts of water for cooling
> runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
> is self limiting
> can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
> can be buried underground
> will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
> and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap!  We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.
> 
> In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech.  We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting
> 
> but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see
> 
> and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too
Click to expand...

fusion (a natural energy with a natural future) will be better.


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?*
> _By Mike O’Boyle_
> 
> For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
> 
> Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. *This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?*
> 
> The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.
> 
> *What is levelized cost of energy?*
> Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
> 
> Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
> 
> *How wind and solar are winning the day*
> According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.
> 
> Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan
> 
> *Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar.  They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar.  They said it was ridiculous
> 
> Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.
> 
> renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
> So it's coal 34%
> natural gas 30%
> Nuclear 20%
> Hydro 7%
> wind 5%
> Solar 1%
> oil 1%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  And what we know is wind and solar are showing great promise.  Even dried up old coal towns who can't grow anything on that soil once they've stipped the land of all the coal are considering becoming a place where companies put up wind mills and solar panels.  Why not?  There's nothing else to look at in Appalachia.  LOL.
> 
> Just kidding.  Beautiful country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But google Appalachia people and what pops up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So those woods are beautiful but I wouldn't go in them.
> 
> Last guy who did regretted it
Click to expand...

probably an area of specialty such as architecture could solve that problem for us.

Structures that may withstand nuclear forms of assault and battery; should also have their own renewable energy capability;

there is no reason not to include State power grid substations, in federal structures, that may include emergency facilities and resources.

those federal structures could be State points of access, for public goods and public services.

Renewable energy should be a State (Capitalism) concern.


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
Click to expand...

Because we will never run out.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
Click to expand...

It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.


----------



## sealybobo

I hate it that Carter put solar panels on the white house and Reagan took them off.

The oil CEOs told Reagan to do that


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated
> 
> wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?
> 
> Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal
> 
> 
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.
> 
> the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic.  That is why.
Click to expand...


Do you ever listen to yourself? You want to end the war on drugs because it costs too much but you want to give huge tax subsidies for wind power even though you deny that emissions have anything to do with climate change and you want to improve the infrastructure of foreign countries

what the fuck are you on?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we will never run out.
Click to expand...


Never running out of something more expensive and less reliable still isn't a good selling point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> I hate it that Carter put solar panels on the white house and Reagan took them off.
> 
> The oil CEOs told Reagan to do that



That was hilarious!!


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
Click to expand...

substations do not have capacitance you idiot.  Do you even know what a capacitor is?

An electrical substation is a transformer where power is either stepped up in voltage for transmission over long distance power lines or stepped down before it is sent over local electric lines to the end user in the home


----------



## Skull Pilot

sealybobo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power
> 
> 
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
Click to expand...


It's a waste of money and will result in higher not lower electricity costs
We should be going all in on nuclear power as it is the only emission free way to produce the abundant reliable power we need no and that will meet our increased needs in the future


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
Click to expand...

*
It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*

*Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.

Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?

We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.
> 
> 
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.
> 
> the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic.  That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever listen to yourself? You want to end the war on drugs because it costs too much but you want to give huge tax subsidies for wind power even though you deny that emissions have anything to do with climate change and you want to improve the infrastructure of foreign countries
> 
> what the fuck are you on?
Click to expand...

Human emissions do have to do with climate change.

You guys don't deny that anymore. Haven't you got the .Emo?

Your new argument is that it's no big deal or that there's nothing we can do about it.

Both are also lies.


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we will never run out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never running out of something more expensive and less reliable still isn't a good selling point.
Click to expand...

From what GW deniers say we need coal and oil to manufacture or produce the wind and solar machines that will produce alternative energy sources. That's a good point. So while coal and oil might be cheap now one day that sbits going to be very scarce and valuable. You want to burn up coal now for the coalminer. Fuck that. Just like detroiters they need to move from Appalachians and teach there kids to do something else


----------



## sealybobo

Skull Pilot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.
> 
> I love people who say its impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> where did I ever say that was impossible
> 
> reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters
> 
> We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future
> 
> I don't get you people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a waste of money and will result in higher not lower electricity costs
> We should be going all in on nuclear power as it is the only emission free way to produce the abundant reliable power we need no and that will meet our increased needs in the future
Click to expand...

I kind of agree. It's a technology that can burn for 1000 or more years.

Can you imagine if every house was powered for 100 years on a marble of uranium. Or a marble fuels a city.


----------



## JustAnotherNut

What about using our garbage instead of dumping in the ocean &/or landfills? We wouldn't be using any resources and saving the planet at the same time. It would also be reliable and readily available. It would also be incentive to clean up said oceans & landfills and to protect what we have left. Seems like a win-win


----------



## Skull Pilot

sealybobo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> 
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.
> 
> the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic.  That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever listen to yourself? You want to end the war on drugs because it costs too much but you want to give huge tax subsidies for wind power even though you deny that emissions have anything to do with climate change and you want to improve the infrastructure of foreign countries
> 
> what the fuck are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human emissions do have to do with climate change.
> 
> You guys don't deny that anymore. Haven't you got the .Emo?
> 
> Your new argument is that it's no big deal or that there's nothing we can do about it.
> 
> Both are also lies.
Click to expand...

you come late to the party and presume to know what the fuck is going on

That was a response to DP because he said that humans do not have any effect on climate not me asshole
I have never denied that humans affect climate if you want you can try to find a quote where I did say that


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.
> 
> 
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.
> 
> the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic.  That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever listen to yourself? You want to end the war on drugs because it costs too much but you want to give huge tax subsidies for wind power even though you deny that emissions have anything to do with climate change and you want to improve the infrastructure of foreign countries
> 
> what the fuck are you on?
Click to expand...

the side of Capitalism?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we will never run out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never running out of something more expensive and less reliable still isn't a good selling point.
Click to expand...

propaganda and rhetoric, with special pleading?

technology is improving all the time.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations do not have capacitance you idiot.  Do you even know what a capacitor is?
> 
> An electrical substation is a transformer where power is either stepped up in voltage for transmission over long distance power lines or stepped down before it is sent over local electric lines to the end user in the home
Click to expand...

substations can include capacitance, dear; it is the reason for the structure.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*
> 
> *Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.
> 
> Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?
> 
> We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.
Click to expand...

it is for the common defense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we will never run out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never running out of something more expensive and less reliable still isn't a good selling point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> propaganda and rhetoric, with special pleading?
> 
> technology is improving all the time.
Click to expand...


I'm not pleading with green propaganda. That's the other guys.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*
> 
> *Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.
> 
> Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?
> 
> We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is for the common defense.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance helps with the common defense?


----------



## mamooth

Skull Pilot said:


> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale



Cheaper? Horseshit.

Any nuclear engineer will tell you molten salt reactors have the uranium dissolved in the molten salt. That means a complex nuclear chemistry facility would have to be present at every site, to constantly remove fission products and add more uranium to the molten salt. That rules out molten salt reactors being economically feasible at anything except very large scales. Miniature molten salt reactors? Not a chance in hell.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.  Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.
> 
> 
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.
> 
> the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic.  That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever listen to yourself? You want to end the war on drugs because it costs too much but you want to give huge tax subsidies for wind power even though you deny that emissions have anything to do with climate change and you want to improve the infrastructure of foreign countries
> 
> what the fuck are you on?
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you on? I have already stated that the subsidies are no longer needed. The corporations will put in wind and solar now on the basis of economics. However, the subsidies will now vastly increase their profit margins, so they have their lobbyists there trying to extend the subsidies just as long as they can.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> 
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.
> 
> the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic.  That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever listen to yourself? You want to end the war on drugs because it costs too much but you want to give huge tax subsidies for wind power even though you deny that emissions have anything to do with climate change and you want to improve the infrastructure of foreign countries
> 
> what the fuck are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the side of Capitalism?
Click to expand...

I don't think so.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations do not have capacitance you idiot.  Do you even know what a capacitor is?
> 
> An electrical substation is a transformer where power is either stepped up in voltage for transmission over long distance power lines or stepped down before it is sent over local electric lines to the end user in the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations can include capacitance, dear; it is the reason for the structure.
Click to expand...

No.

You have to realize that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true
But why don't you show me a link to a substation that has capacitance?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're a denier
> good to know
> 
> if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?
> 
> 
> 
> My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.
> 
> wind _power_ is simply that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.
> 
> the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic.  That is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever listen to yourself? You want to end the war on drugs because it costs too much but you want to give huge tax subsidies for wind power even though you deny that emissions have anything to do with climate change and you want to improve the infrastructure of foreign countries
> 
> what the fuck are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you on? I have already stated that the subsidies are no longer needed. The corporations will put in wind and solar now on the basis of economics. However, the subsidies will now vastly increase their profit margins, so they have their lobbyists there trying to extend the subsidies just as long as they can.
Click to expand...


really no longer needed?

then why do they still exist?

Take all the subsidies out of the equation and then run your cost analysis in actual output not installed capacity then take into account that all those windmills will have to be replaced every 20 years


----------



## Skull Pilot

mamooth said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheaper? Horseshit.
> 
> Any nuclear engineer will tell you molten salt reactors have the uranium dissolved in the molten salt. That means a complex nuclear chemistry facility would have to be present at every site, to constantly remove fission products and add more uranium to the molten salt. That rules out molten salt reactors being economically feasible at anything except very large scales. Miniature molten salt reactors? Not a chance in hell.
Click to expand...

then again there are already proposed designs to address that

A simple and “SMAHTR” way to build a molten salt reactor, from Canada - The Alvin Weinberg Foundation

_ Terrestrial’s design calls for a single fluid reactor that would “burn” rather than breed. In the nuclear lexicon, LeBlanc’s reactor is known as a “burner” or a “converter”, not a “breeder.”
_
this design change makes it possible to make the reactors smaller

why do you people like to ignore design innovation ?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> 
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*
> 
> *Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.
> 
> Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?
> 
> We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
Click to expand...

It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil
> 
> 
> 
> *
> But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations do not have capacitance you idiot.  Do you even know what a capacitor is?
> 
> An electrical substation is a transformer where power is either stepped up in voltage for transmission over long distance power lines or stepped down before it is sent over local electric lines to the end user in the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations can include capacitance, dear; it is the reason for the structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> You have to realize that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true
> But why don't you show me a link to a substation that has capacitance?
Click to expand...

Upgrading could make it true.  It won't be free, but neither are our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*
> 
> *Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.
> 
> Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?
> 
> We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
Click to expand...


How much capacitance does each substation have now?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*
> 
> *Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.
> 
> Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?
> 
> We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
Click to expand...

not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*
> 
> *Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.
> 
> Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?
> 
> We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> it is for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
Click to expand...


Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.*
> 
> If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations do not have capacitance you idiot.  Do you even know what a capacitor is?
> 
> An electrical substation is a transformer where power is either stepped up in voltage for transmission over long distance power lines or stepped down before it is sent over local electric lines to the end user in the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations can include capacitance, dear; it is the reason for the structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> You have to realize that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true
> But why don't you show me a link to a substation that has capacitance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading could make it true.  It won't be free, but neither are our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.
Click to expand...

no

we don't need to make substations giant capacitors we need a reliable supply of steady power


----------



## Skull Pilot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*
> 
> *Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.
> 
> Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?
> 
> We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
Click to expand...

 


Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is for the common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
Click to expand...

good luck trying to get DP to link to anything he says


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is for the common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
Click to expand...

Any form of grid energy storage could be housed in a substation structure.  Subground should be an option for substations.

Grid energy storage - Wikipedia


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> 
> 
> substations do not have capacitance you idiot.  Do you even know what a capacitor is?
> 
> An electrical substation is a transformer where power is either stepped up in voltage for transmission over long distance power lines or stepped down before it is sent over local electric lines to the end user in the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations can include capacitance, dear; it is the reason for the structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> You have to realize that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true
> But why don't you show me a link to a substation that has capacitance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading could make it true.  It won't be free, but neither are our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no
> 
> we don't need to make substations giant capacitors we need a reliable supply of steady power
Click to expand...

substations with capacitance can store energy for more reliable and consistent output, regardless of variability in any given location.  Besides, the wind is always blowing somewhere.  A better grid can harness that energy.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance*
> 
> *Capacitance* is the ability of a body to store an electric charge.
> 
> Hmmmmm.....you think substations are storing electric charge?
> 
> We may have discovered your area of greatest ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> it is for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good luck trying to get DP to link to anything he says
Click to expand...

all we need do, is house the equipment in a structure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any form of grid energy storage could be housed in a substation structure.  Subground should be an option for substations.
> 
> Grid energy storage - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


So you were lying before when you said we already had this. Thanks for admitting your lie.


----------



## there4eyeM

Pump water up with excess energy, let gravity work in times of dearth.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance helps with the common defense?
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any form of grid energy storage could be housed in a substation structure.  Subground should be an option for substations.
> 
> Grid energy storage - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


backpedal all you want a substation is not now nor will it ever grid storage


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> Pump water up with excess energy, let gravity work in times of dearth.



yeah that won't cost an arm and a leg


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> substations do not have capacitance you idiot.  Do you even know what a capacitor is?
> 
> An electrical substation is a transformer where power is either stepped up in voltage for transmission over long distance power lines or stepped down before it is sent over local electric lines to the end user in the home
> 
> 
> 
> substations can include capacitance, dear; it is the reason for the structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> You have to realize that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true
> But why don't you show me a link to a substation that has capacitance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading could make it true.  It won't be free, but neither are our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no
> 
> we don't need to make substations giant capacitors we need a reliable supply of steady power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> substations with capacitance can store energy for more reliable and consistent output, regardless of variability in any given location.  Besides, the wind is always blowing somewhere.  A better grid can harness that energy.
Click to expand...


yeah but getting that power to where the wind isn't blowing is the problem


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we need a better grid with better substations that have better capacitance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any form of grid energy storage could be housed in a substation structure.  Subground should be an option for substations.
> 
> Grid energy storage - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were lying before when you said we already had this. Thanks for admitting your lie.
Click to expand...

Somebody has some version of it. 



> To understand why undergrounding HVDC lines for great distances is feasible, while undergrounding HVAC lines for more than about 40 miles is not, it is necessary to consider the capacitance of air-insulated overhead lines versus cables, which are typically surrounded by polymer insulation and soil. Capacitance is a property of every electrical circuit, not just capacitors (which are designed deliberately for high capacitance). A wire suspended in air has much less capacitance (by about a factor of 50-100) compared to a cable, in which the wire is surrounded both by polymeric insulation and soil. The capacitance limits how fast the voltage responds at the far end of a power line when voltage is applied at the near end. Capacitance has only a small transient effect on a DC power transmission line, delaying the voltage rise at the far end of the line by milliseconds at most when voltage is applied at the near end. When capacitance of an AC line is too high though, it has a quite dramatic effect; this is the case because at 60 Hz, the voltage reverses 120 times per second (8.33 milliseconds for per reversal); each time this happens, the “line capacitor” needs to be charged up before any power can flow through the line. The much higher capacitance of a cable (especially one that is located underground or undersea) means that this limiting line capacitance is reached for a much shorter cable (50 to 100 times shorter) than an overhead line. Thus at most short bits of an AC power transmission line can be placed underground, whereas there is no problem in terms of power flow with putting a DC power line underground.--http://www.theenergycollective.com/roger_rethinker/204396/ac-versus-dc-powerlines



Substations could collect renewable energy, provide grid energy storage, and provide redundancy to our energy grid.



> Clean Line’s HVDC transmission lines projects will deliver power from new, renewable energy resources.  These resources will be AC generators, as is normally the case, and their energy will be transmitted along collector lines.  These collector lines will then be connected to a substation where the power will be collected and the voltage will be transformed from the voltage of the collector lines to a common voltage (such as 345,000 volts).  The power will then be converted to DC, a process known as rectification, using power electronic switches called thyristors.  The power will then be transmitted several hundred miles along a set of conductors called a transmission line before getting converted back to AC, a process known as inversion, again using thyristors as the switching devices.  After the DC power is converted back to AC it is transformed to the common voltage of the grid to which it is being connected (e.g. 500,000 volts or 765,000 volts, in the case of Clean Line’s projects).  This power is then distributed via the interconnected grid by the local utilities to homes and businesses.  See below for an illustration of this process.--http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/technology/hvdc/how


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> 
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any form of grid energy storage could be housed in a substation structure.  Subground should be an option for substations.
> 
> Grid energy storage - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were lying before when you said we already had this. Thanks for admitting your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somebody has some version of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To understand why undergrounding HVDC lines for great distances is feasible, while undergrounding HVAC lines for more than about 40 miles is not, it is necessary to consider the capacitance of air-insulated overhead lines versus cables, which are typically surrounded by polymer insulation and soil. Capacitance is a property of every electrical circuit, not just capacitors (which are designed deliberately for high capacitance). A wire suspended in air has much less capacitance (by about a factor of 50-100) compared to a cable, in which the wire is surrounded both by polymeric insulation and soil. The capacitance limits how fast the voltage responds at the far end of a power line when voltage is applied at the near end. Capacitance has only a small transient effect on a DC power transmission line, delaying the voltage rise at the far end of the line by milliseconds at most when voltage is applied at the near end. When capacitance of an AC line is too high though, it has a quite dramatic effect; this is the case because at 60 Hz, the voltage reverses 120 times per second (8.33 milliseconds for per reversal); each time this happens, the “line capacitor” needs to be charged up before any power can flow through the line. The much higher capacitance of a cable (especially one that is located underground or undersea) means that this limiting line capacitance is reached for a much shorter cable (50 to 100 times shorter) than an overhead line. Thus at most short bits of an AC power transmission line can be placed underground, whereas there is no problem in terms of power flow with putting a DC power line underground.--http://www.theenergycollective.com/roger_rethinker/204396/ac-versus-dc-powerlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Substations could collect renewable energy, provide grid energy storage, and provide redundancy to our energy grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clean Line’s HVDC transmission lines projects will deliver power from new, renewable energy resources.  These resources will be AC generators, as is normally the case, and their energy will be transmitted along collector lines.  These collector lines will then be connected to a substation where the power will be collected and the voltage will be transformed from the voltage of the collector lines to a common voltage (such as 345,000 volts).  The power will then be converted to DC, a process known as rectification, using power electronic switches called thyristors.  The power will then be transmitted several hundred miles along a set of conductors called a transmission line before getting converted back to AC, a process known as inversion, again using thyristors as the switching devices.  After the DC power is converted back to AC it is transformed to the common voltage of the grid to which it is being connected (e.g. 500,000 volts or 765,000 volts, in the case of Clean Line’s projects).  This power is then distributed via the interconnected grid by the local utilities to homes and businesses.  See below for an illustration of this process.--http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/technology/hvdc/how
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah, if we want to waste money on more expensive, less reliable "green energy", we should do that.


----------



## danielpalos

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much capacitance does each substation have now?
> 
> 
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any form of grid energy storage could be housed in a substation structure.  Subground should be an option for substations.
> 
> Grid energy storage - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were lying before when you said we already had this. Thanks for admitting your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somebody has some version of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To understand why undergrounding HVDC lines for great distances is feasible, while undergrounding HVAC lines for more than about 40 miles is not, it is necessary to consider the capacitance of air-insulated overhead lines versus cables, which are typically surrounded by polymer insulation and soil. Capacitance is a property of every electrical circuit, not just capacitors (which are designed deliberately for high capacitance). A wire suspended in air has much less capacitance (by about a factor of 50-100) compared to a cable, in which the wire is surrounded both by polymeric insulation and soil. The capacitance limits how fast the voltage responds at the far end of a power line when voltage is applied at the near end. Capacitance has only a small transient effect on a DC power transmission line, delaying the voltage rise at the far end of the line by milliseconds at most when voltage is applied at the near end. When capacitance of an AC line is too high though, it has a quite dramatic effect; this is the case because at 60 Hz, the voltage reverses 120 times per second (8.33 milliseconds for per reversal); each time this happens, the “line capacitor” needs to be charged up before any power can flow through the line. The much higher capacitance of a cable (especially one that is located underground or undersea) means that this limiting line capacitance is reached for a much shorter cable (50 to 100 times shorter) than an overhead line. Thus at most short bits of an AC power transmission line can be placed underground, whereas there is no problem in terms of power flow with putting a DC power line underground.--http://www.theenergycollective.com/roger_rethinker/204396/ac-versus-dc-powerlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Substations could collect renewable energy, provide grid energy storage, and provide redundancy to our energy grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clean Line’s HVDC transmission lines projects will deliver power from new, renewable energy resources.  These resources will be AC generators, as is normally the case, and their energy will be transmitted along collector lines.  These collector lines will then be connected to a substation where the power will be collected and the voltage will be transformed from the voltage of the collector lines to a common voltage (such as 345,000 volts).  The power will then be converted to DC, a process known as rectification, using power electronic switches called thyristors.  The power will then be transmitted several hundred miles along a set of conductors called a transmission line before getting converted back to AC, a process known as inversion, again using thyristors as the switching devices.  After the DC power is converted back to AC it is transformed to the common voltage of the grid to which it is being connected (e.g. 500,000 volts or 765,000 volts, in the case of Clean Line’s projects).  This power is then distributed via the interconnected grid by the local utilities to homes and businesses.  See below for an illustration of this process.--http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/technology/hvdc/how
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

it is about the wind always blowing, somewhere; substations can make that happen; if we upgrade capacity.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure of any; but, there are some experiments in progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any form of grid energy storage could be housed in a substation structure.  Subground should be an option for substations.
> 
> Grid energy storage - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were lying before when you said we already had this. Thanks for admitting your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somebody has some version of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To understand why undergrounding HVDC lines for great distances is feasible, while undergrounding HVAC lines for more than about 40 miles is not, it is necessary to consider the capacitance of air-insulated overhead lines versus cables, which are typically surrounded by polymer insulation and soil. Capacitance is a property of every electrical circuit, not just capacitors (which are designed deliberately for high capacitance). A wire suspended in air has much less capacitance (by about a factor of 50-100) compared to a cable, in which the wire is surrounded both by polymeric insulation and soil. The capacitance limits how fast the voltage responds at the far end of a power line when voltage is applied at the near end. Capacitance has only a small transient effect on a DC power transmission line, delaying the voltage rise at the far end of the line by milliseconds at most when voltage is applied at the near end. When capacitance of an AC line is too high though, it has a quite dramatic effect; this is the case because at 60 Hz, the voltage reverses 120 times per second (8.33 milliseconds for per reversal); each time this happens, the “line capacitor” needs to be charged up before any power can flow through the line. The much higher capacitance of a cable (especially one that is located underground or undersea) means that this limiting line capacitance is reached for a much shorter cable (50 to 100 times shorter) than an overhead line. Thus at most short bits of an AC power transmission line can be placed underground, whereas there is no problem in terms of power flow with putting a DC power line underground.--http://www.theenergycollective.com/roger_rethinker/204396/ac-versus-dc-powerlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Substations could collect renewable energy, provide grid energy storage, and provide redundancy to our energy grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clean Line’s HVDC transmission lines projects will deliver power from new, renewable energy resources.  These resources will be AC generators, as is normally the case, and their energy will be transmitted along collector lines.  These collector lines will then be connected to a substation where the power will be collected and the voltage will be transformed from the voltage of the collector lines to a common voltage (such as 345,000 volts).  The power will then be converted to DC, a process known as rectification, using power electronic switches called thyristors.  The power will then be transmitted several hundred miles along a set of conductors called a transmission line before getting converted back to AC, a process known as inversion, again using thyristors as the switching devices.  After the DC power is converted back to AC it is transformed to the common voltage of the grid to which it is being connected (e.g. 500,000 volts or 765,000 volts, in the case of Clean Line’s projects).  This power is then distributed via the interconnected grid by the local utilities to homes and businesses.  See below for an illustration of this process.--http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/technology/hvdc/how
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the wind always blowing, somewhere; substations can make that happen; if we upgrade capacity.
Click to expand...


wind is still the least reliable of all power generation techniques that you don't understand this is a mystery


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. Link to a substation capacitance experiment.
> 
> 
> 
> Any form of grid energy storage could be housed in a substation structure.  Subground should be an option for substations.
> 
> Grid energy storage - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were lying before when you said we already had this. Thanks for admitting your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somebody has some version of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To understand why undergrounding HVDC lines for great distances is feasible, while undergrounding HVAC lines for more than about 40 miles is not, it is necessary to consider the capacitance of air-insulated overhead lines versus cables, which are typically surrounded by polymer insulation and soil. Capacitance is a property of every electrical circuit, not just capacitors (which are designed deliberately for high capacitance). A wire suspended in air has much less capacitance (by about a factor of 50-100) compared to a cable, in which the wire is surrounded both by polymeric insulation and soil. The capacitance limits how fast the voltage responds at the far end of a power line when voltage is applied at the near end. Capacitance has only a small transient effect on a DC power transmission line, delaying the voltage rise at the far end of the line by milliseconds at most when voltage is applied at the near end. When capacitance of an AC line is too high though, it has a quite dramatic effect; this is the case because at 60 Hz, the voltage reverses 120 times per second (8.33 milliseconds for per reversal); each time this happens, the “line capacitor” needs to be charged up before any power can flow through the line. The much higher capacitance of a cable (especially one that is located underground or undersea) means that this limiting line capacitance is reached for a much shorter cable (50 to 100 times shorter) than an overhead line. Thus at most short bits of an AC power transmission line can be placed underground, whereas there is no problem in terms of power flow with putting a DC power line underground.--http://www.theenergycollective.com/roger_rethinker/204396/ac-versus-dc-powerlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Substations could collect renewable energy, provide grid energy storage, and provide redundancy to our energy grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clean Line’s HVDC transmission lines projects will deliver power from new, renewable energy resources.  These resources will be AC generators, as is normally the case, and their energy will be transmitted along collector lines.  These collector lines will then be connected to a substation where the power will be collected and the voltage will be transformed from the voltage of the collector lines to a common voltage (such as 345,000 volts).  The power will then be converted to DC, a process known as rectification, using power electronic switches called thyristors.  The power will then be transmitted several hundred miles along a set of conductors called a transmission line before getting converted back to AC, a process known as inversion, again using thyristors as the switching devices.  After the DC power is converted back to AC it is transformed to the common voltage of the grid to which it is being connected (e.g. 500,000 volts or 765,000 volts, in the case of Clean Line’s projects).  This power is then distributed via the interconnected grid by the local utilities to homes and businesses.  See below for an illustration of this process.--http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/technology/hvdc/how
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the wind always blowing, somewhere; substations can make that happen; if we upgrade capacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wind is still the least reliable of all power generation techniques that you don't understand this is a mystery
Click to expand...

it is about the wind always blowing, somewhere; substations can make that happen; if we upgrade capacity.


----------



## danielpalos

Grid scale, scalable batteries, is a market friendly solution:


----------



## danielpalos

Grid energy storage could be located in energy substations where natural energy can easily be generated by hydro or wind power and connect to any State grid; and

include battalion level infrastructure in case of emergency or evacuation. 

A multi-use energy substation could be more cost effective.  And better provide for the common defense and domestic tranquility of our free States.  Food and shelter would be available to the People, in times of need.


----------



## Old Rocks

NAS grid-scale batteries. image: NGK.

Japan-headquartered NGK Insulators is the manufacturer of the NAS sodium sulfur battery, used in grid-scale energy storage systems around the world. ESN spoke to Naoki Hirai, Managing Director at NGK Italy S.r.l.

*What is the history of NAS batteries and how have they progressed from early R&D to commercialisation?*

Originally, the principle of the sodium sulfur battery was released in the United States, and it led to various trials in the US, Europe as well as Japan for the development of the battery to be utilised for electric automobiles or energy storage systems.

NGK started the development of the Beta Alumina electrolyte utilising the expertise of fine ceramic technologies in 1984, and extended it to the development of NAS (sodium sulfur) battery in 1989, jointly with TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company).

It resulted in the only success of commercialisation in 2002. Up to now NAS is the most-used large scale battery in the world.

*What are the applications NAS batteries are suitable for?*

NAS batteries can store large amounts of energy and discharge for long durations, and can be configured for large-scale deployments. Therefore NAS batteries are suitable for energy type applications, such as energy shifting of renewables from off-peak to peak time, transmission and distribution (T&D) network management, and load levelling. Also NAS batteries can be used for ancillary services additionally to stack the benefits and the income.

*What are some of the advantages of NAS batteries in comparison to other technologies for storing energy?*

Heading the list of the NAS battery's advantages are long discharge times, six hours and more, large capacities available from 10s to 100s of megawatts, and long life; rated at 15 years, 4,500 cycles at 100% DOD (depth of discharge). The batteries' advantages also include compact design, it is easy to expand the system size as much as needed, they are quick to install and require minimal maintenance. In addition, NGK’s NAS battery systems are the only grid-scale battery storage with over 10 years of commercial operation. And in total cost per kWh, the NAS battery is less expensive than other technologies, such as lithium-ion or redox flow batteries.

NGK’s NAS sodium sulfur grid-scale batteries in depth

*Japan*


----------



## Old Rocks

Tesla Installs Its First European Grid-Scale Battery

*Energy Storage News: First Grid-Scale Tesla Powerpack for Europe Installed in U.K.*

The first grid-scale installation of the Tesla Powerpack system in Europe has been completed in the U.K. by Camborne Energy Storage and is already providing ancillary services to the National Grid.

The 500 kWh capacity system has been co-located with a 500 kWp solar farm in Somerset to demonstrate the potential to provide a balanced grid.

Each of Camborne’s installed systems are designed to further assist and improve the efficiency of the U.K.’s energy infrastructure, with this latest project providing firm frequency response to the grid.

*Great Britain *


----------



## Old Rocks

India’s First Grid-Scale Battery Project Signals a Coming Boom for Energy Storage

India has launched its first grid-scale battery storage system amid ambitious plans to integrate 175 gigawatts of renewable energy into the power system by 2022.

Commissioned and operated by Tata Power Delhi Distribution, the 10-megawatt Advancion energy storage array is a joint project by Mitsubishi and the U.S. energy storage company AES. 

Designed for peak load management, the project couldn’t have come at a better time for India, said to Logan Goldie-Scot, an energy storage expert at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

*India*


----------



## Old Rocks

World's Largest Storage Battery Will Power Los Angeles

By 2021, electricity use in the west Los Angeles area may be in for a climate change-fighting evolution.

For many years, the tradition has been that on midsummer afternoons, engineers will turn on what they call a “peaker,” a natural gas-burning power plant In Long Beach. It is needed to help the area’s other power plants meet the day’s peak electricity consumption. Thus, as air conditioners max out and people arriving home from work turn on their televisions and other appliances, the juice will be there.

Five years from now, if current plans work out, the “peaker” will be gone, replaced by the world’s largest storage battery, capable of holding and delivering over 100 megawatts of power an hour for four hours. The customary afternoon peak will still be there, but the battery will be able to handle it without the need for more fossil fuels. It will have spent the morning charging up with cheap solar power that might have otherwise been wasted.

*USA*


----------



## Old Rocks

Now I could continue for quite a few posts. There are many nations starting to adapt their grids to battery storage. There are many advantages to this, one of the prime is lowering cost of the electricity. For you do not need peaker generators, usually gas plants, for the high usage periods. Less generators and more efficient use of those you have. Win-win for all.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Now I could continue for quite a few posts. There are many nations starting to adapt their grids to battery storage. There are many advantages to this, one of the prime is lowering cost of the electricity. For you do not need peaker generators, usually gas plants, for the high usage periods. Less generators and more efficient use of those you have. Win-win for all.


you assume wind and solar will generate enough surplus power to store and that the stored power will be enough to power everything when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing

and you assume we can meet not only our existing power needs but the power needs that will grow if we get off of all fossil fuels and electrify everything from cars to household heat and hot water


----------



## Viacheslav

Old Rocks said:


> There are many nations starting to adapt their grids to battery storage.


Without subsidies, these solutions  are in most cases uncompetitive in the market


----------



## Whocares386

I think Nuclear Fusion is really optimum and important for us because beauty of this type of nuclear reactor is that its fuel is hydrogen, which can be obtained from water. (Remember, we have no problem with water)

Eventually, humanity is very close to achieving a clean energy source.

There is an article about that:
Nuclear Fusion


----------



## Old Rocks

Nuclear fusion would be a real boon. But thus far, it has been very elusive, with some major engineering problems. In the meantime, grid scale batteries, solar, and wind are here, and economical.


----------



## RGR

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I could continue for quite a few posts. There are many nations starting to adapt their grids to battery storage. There are many advantages to this, one of the prime is lowering cost of the electricity. For you do not need peaker generators, usually gas plants, for the high usage periods. Less generators and more efficient use of those you have. Win-win for all.
> 
> 
> 
> you assume wind and solar will generate enough surplus power to store and that the stored power will be enough to power everything when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing
Click to expand...


The assumption did not appear to include doing EVERYTHING, obviously the examples provided are no different than the original buildout of gas fired turbines, coal fired plants, nuke plants, and recently the capacity in windmills and utility scale solar.

So sure, given exponential growth in new power generation, there isn't any reason to assume that such things can't do big chunks of our power generation in the future. And folks like my wife can continue to get free fuel from outstanding employers who care!



			
				Skull Pilot said:
			
		

> and you assume we can meet not only our existing power needs but the power needs that will grow if we get off of all fossil fuels and electrify everything from cars to household heat and hot water



Fortunately there is no need for this to happen quickly, but we are off to a good start! And with decent employers taking advantage of it to add free fuel to their employee benefits, this is good for those employees, I mean, free fuel? Employees will take it!


----------



## Skull Pilot

RGR said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I could continue for quite a few posts. There are many nations starting to adapt their grids to battery storage. There are many advantages to this, one of the prime is lowering cost of the electricity. For you do not need peaker generators, usually gas plants, for the high usage periods. Less generators and more efficient use of those you have. Win-win for all.
> 
> 
> 
> you assume wind and solar will generate enough surplus power to store and that the stored power will be enough to power everything when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The assumption did not appear to include doing EVERYTHING, obviously the examples provided are no different than the original buildout of gas fired turbines, coal fired plants, nuke plants, and recently the capacity in windmills and utility scale solar.
> 
> So sure, given exponential growth in new power generation, there isn't any reason to assume that such things can't do big chunks of our power generation in the future. And folks like my wife can continue to get free fuel from outstanding employers who care!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you assume we can meet not only our existing power needs but the power needs that will grow if we get off of all fossil fuels and electrify everything from cars to household heat and hot water
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately there is no need for this to happen quickly, but we are off to a good start! And with decent employers taking advantage of it to add free fuel to their employee benefits, this is good for those employees, I mean, free fuel? Employees will take it!
Click to expand...


yeah sorry but no one gets "free" anyting


----------



## Old Rocks

OK, we will just call it an additional employee benefit in order to get competent workers.


----------



## RGR

Skull Pilot said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately there is no need for this to happen quickly, but we are off to a good start! And with decent employers taking advantage of it to add free fuel to their employee benefits, this is good for those employees, I mean, free fuel? Employees will take it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah sorry but no one gets "free" anyting
Click to expand...


Wife pulls into EV designated parking spot (additional advantage #1, 1st floor parking, closer to office). Wife plugs in car. Fuel is delivered to car throughout the day. Wife gets in car at end of day, now full of fuel. Drives home. Pays nothing! Repeats day in and day out. Not even any restrictions on using this fuel! Yesterday we went out to eat on this zero cost fuel, I've used it to go to the movie theater, fetch groceries, then don't even ask for an accounting of it for tax purposes! They just hand it out to employees like...its...free!!

I'm sure this "non-free, but take as much as you'd like, and pay use $0 for it!" benefit must be becoming more common among the higher quality employers nowadays, it can't be like folks as conservative as bankers invented this fringe benefit, or it will stop with them.


----------



## danielpalos

power grid substations could go, "vertical" for greenspace conservation and reliability when partially underground.


----------

