Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal.
That is silly - wind is cheaper than coal everywhere and anywhere and all the time. With or without taxes.
The stats were posted earlier.
Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.
LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.
Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.
Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?
Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?
What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?
This might be a good time to review energy costs:
Advanced Coal 140 (per MWH)
Coal NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132
Biomass 120
Nuclear 112
Advanced Coal 112
Convention coal 99.6
Wind 96.8
Hydro 89.9
Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think this shows why most experts consider coal to be an outmoded technology, and why nuclear, wind, tidal, hydro and natural gas are considered to be the main fuels of the 21st century.
Tidal is not priced here, but pilot programs in Scotland, Korea, New Zealand and China suggest that it may become the cheapest source of energy available.
Nice numbers but the fact it was for "Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017" seems to change things a bit.. LOL,dude are you even capable of honesty anymore?
Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017
Conventional Coal 99.6
Advanced Coal 85 112.2
Advanced Coal with CCS 140.7
Natural Gas Fired
NG: Conventional Combined Cycle 68.6
NG: Advanced Combined Cycle 65.5
NG: Advanced CC with CCS 87 92.8
NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132.0
NG: Advanced Combustion Turbine 105.3
Advanced Nuclear 112.7
Geothermal 99.6
Biomass 83 120.2
Wind1 34 96.8
Solar PV1,2 156.9
Solar Thermal1 251.0
Hydro1 89.9
That's from your link socko.. Why not cite the full list instead of cherry picking?
And the funny part is the numbers are not only estimated but do not reflect actual costs of wind power.It does not reflect insurance. it's a huge tower with big spinning blades and not only a fire hazard but a big airborne fire hazard. Not to mention the damage it can do to birds, and the habitat destruction such wind farms will entail. Oh yes insurance will be a problem. Also where is the maintenance costs? It's meaningless list generated to sell a product..
Your costs are to build new capacity, not to run it. If you never turn them on, fueled sources are pretty cheap. If you do turn them on, fuel and waste disposal are the largest costs.
The only question left is, are you just slow or just deceptive or both?
Tell us what surrounds our atmosphere if not a vacuum.
Why don't you quit spouting random factoids and go back and explain how "Climate Sensitivity" is not required to predict a temp rise from CO2.. And tell me HOW CERTAIN you are that all your myriad of consensus AGREEE on what this number should be?
OR -- you could refute my observation about the "feedbacks" dominating the temperature projections. ABOVE AND BEYOND the mere injection of some trivial amount of CO2..
After all -- You started this with the silly statement that AGW was "simple" and "obvious"..
And that my bone-headed friend is the topic here... Not interested in your "recollection" of basic physics..
I've changed my mind. You are incapable of understanding simple physics and are educated only in the denial of physics. A conservative media cult exclusive.
Anyone educated in physics would avoid all of your pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and get to the point. Temperature and energy balance. Irrefutable.
All that is needed to describe the problem.
All of the crap that you lay down like a manure spreader on steroids are factors necessary to quantify and predict the timing and consequences and magnitude of what is inevitable. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth must be.
Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.
LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.
Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.
Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?
Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?
What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?
Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!
The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...
When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....
Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: ?Count.? | Grist
Thats how "....Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz explained his confidence ....." Moniz replied. 'I know how to count. I can count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere.'
Can it be that simple? *It's hotter, there is more CO2, we can count how much is from people, and they are the same.
The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...
When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....
I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so? Coincidence?
Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?
The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...
When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....
I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so? Coincidence?
Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?
The dishonesty sometimes involved in the various scenarios the warmers lay out there is amazing. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal. But so far I haven't found many, if any, who acknowledge that the primary reason it is cheaper is because of the massive carbon tax imposed on coal- roughly $9 billion for a country with population of fewer than 22 million. Also government regulations on new coal production operations are so expensive as to be prohibitive.
Even with the carbon tax, Australian coal plants built in the 80's or earlier are producing energy more cheaply than the wind energy industry.
Why shouldn't the cost of saving civilization from the consequences of dumping waste carbon in the air not be charged to those saving money by dumping it there?
And add to the loooooooooong list of points that went sailing right over PMZ's head. You need to pay better attention to what your Siamese twin is spouting up there.
Why don't you quit spouting random factoids and go back and explain how "Climate Sensitivity" is not required to predict a temp rise from CO2.. And tell me HOW CERTAIN you are that all your myriad of consensus AGREEE on what this number should be?
OR -- you could refute my observation about the "feedbacks" dominating the temperature projections. ABOVE AND BEYOND the mere injection of some trivial amount of CO2..
After all -- You started this with the silly statement that AGW was "simple" and "obvious"..
And that my bone-headed friend is the topic here... Not interested in your "recollection" of basic physics..
I've changed my mind. You are incapable of understanding simple physics and are educated only in the denial of physics. A conservative media cult exclusive.
Anyone educated in physics would avoid all of your pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and get to the point. Temperature and energy balance. Irrefutable.
All that is needed to describe the problem.
All of the crap that you lay down like a manure spreader on steroids are factors necessary to quantify and predict the timing and consequences and magnitude of what is inevitable. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth must be.
Anyone educated in physics would know that the actual heating on this planet occurs when the short wave EM radiation interacts with the atmosphere and suface. And that is not a vacum.
Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.
LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.
Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.
Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?
Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?
What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?
Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!
Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?
Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?
What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?
Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!
The fact is, if you remove the government subsidies and/or the carbon taxes, there is no place that wind power produces energy anywhere nearly as cheaply or as efficiently as coal, natural gas, and oil. And since we are in no imminent danger of running out of any of the carbon based fuels, it seems the smart thing would be to focus technology on minimizing any environmental damage from the use of them rather than forcing less efficient stuff on us.
When wind energy or solar energy or any other energy source becomes more profitable than carbon based energy, we will see newer forms of energy replacing the old. Profit is a powerful motive to produce new products that work better than the old ones.
The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...
When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....
The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...*
When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....
I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so? *Coincidence?
Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?
Well considering your level of understanding of correlation versus causation, the temp rise also correlates well with 49 other factors. Like the average mature size of farmed salmon for instance. Why don't you go back a few pages and try to hurt me with an INTELLIGENT rebuttal to the observation that CO2 forcing is NOT a temperature rise without a "Climate Sensitivity number to account for the earth's surface thermal properties.. And tthat YOUR THEORY of GW, can't decide whether this number is closer to 1 or 5 --- but they PRETEND that their graphs and models are "RIGHT SPOT ON"...*
Do a little work sucker. And YES --- I have 4 or 5 published papers on Optical Computing. Just ONE of the areas I've been blessed to work in.. Yu wanna discuss? Or just badger?
Be glad to do any number of OTHER areas I've done research and engineering in.. But let's do all that in PMessaging eh?
Respond CAREFULLY -- my anger about losing my Civil Liberties and my country is making me more NEG today than usual....
I've changed my mind. You are incapable of understanding simple physics and are educated only in the denial of physics. A conservative media cult exclusive.
Anyone educated in physics would avoid all of your pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and get to the point. Temperature and energy balance. Irrefutable.
All that is needed to describe the problem.
All of the crap that you lay down like a manure spreader on steroids are factors necessary to quantify and predict the timing and consequences and magnitude of what is inevitable. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth must be.
Anyone educated in physics would know that the actual heating on this planet occurs when the short wave EM radiation interacts with the atmosphere and suface. And that is not a vacum.
Anyone educated in physics would know that that has nothing to do with what I said.
