How’s That Wind Power Working Out for You?

[Weatherman2020]

I put up more links than do you. In this case, my query was a dig that "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence".

Ceres has much broader goals than just renewables and while Representative Cortez and I are in close agreement, politically, I would not count on her for technical details of a subject that broad in scope. If you saw a figure somewhere for $100 trillion, I suspect they would be talking about a great deal more than just the introduction of renewables.

My request for a link has really gotten you hot and bothered. Why so?

I assume when you say renewables, you mean wind, solar and other non-emitting power sources. Those developments are being put up by utilities funded by their own liquid assets and loans. They are not being funded with taxpayer dollars and like the fossil fuel tech before them, they will provide the public a valuable service and make their owners a steady profit at the same time.

You seem angrier than usual. Have you been drinking? I was just talking with Uncensored 2008 and he was furious about something. It is perhaps because Trump is going down the tubes?

Not a penny more than we are willing to spend on them.

Take it up at the funerals of Europeans that’ll freeze to death this Winter

 

[Crick]

Take it up at the funerals of Europeans that’ll freeze to death this Winter

Take what up? The suffering in Europe is due to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine, not from global warming measures. The solar and wind facilities in Europe have made the situation BETTER than it would have been had they not been put in place. If Europe had been fully dependent on fossil fuels - as they once were - when Russia cut off their supplies, they'd be royally screwed. But now, due to their aggressive program to add renewables, they have a significant amount of energy unaffected by Russia's decision to stop selling them oil and gas.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Take what up? The suffering in Europe is due to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine, not from global warming measures. The solar and wind facilities in Europe have made the situation BETTER than it would have been had they not been put in place. If Europe had been fully dependent on fossil fuels - as they once were - when Russia cut off their supplies, they'd be royally screwed. But now, due to their aggressive program to add renewables, they have a significant amount of energy unaffected by Russia's decision to stop selling them oil and gas.

Enjoy your green democide this winter, Putin lover.

 

[jc456]

Stupid post..
It you're worried about birds you can go Solar.
Solar is the cheapest of all power generators.
I can bump up my OPs to that effect if you like.

I prefer that to a 7' sea Level Rise, scorching temps, more droughts, etc.
`

So you think there’d be no more droughts? Hahaha hahaha hahaha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Take what up? The suffering in Europe is due to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine, not from global warming measures. The solar and wind facilities in Europe have made the situation BETTER than it would have been had they not been put in place. If Europe had been fully dependent on fossil fuels - as they once were - when Russia cut off their supplies, they'd be royally screwed. But now, due to their aggressive program to add renewables, they have a significant amount of energy unaffected by Russia's decision to stop selling them oil and gas.

Yeah, wind and solar are very productive during winter.

 

[Crick]

Yeah, wind and solar are very productive during winter.

I don't believe you can make any generalized comment about that. When I've looked for that sort of data I've found it to be very location dependent. Some areas are windier in the winter, some in the summer. Some areas have clearer skies in the winter, some in the summer. But if you have some data to support your comment I'd like to see it.

Did you have any issue with my comment about Russia, not renewables, being responsible for the problem or that that Europe would be worse off now if they had not installed all that renewable capacity?

 

[Crick]

Enjoy your green democide this winter, Putin lover.

Putin lover? Where the fuck do you get that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't believe you can make any generalized comment about that. When I've looked for that sort of data I've found it to be very location dependent. Some areas are windier in the winter, some in the summer. Some areas have clearer skies in the winter, some in the summer. But if you have some data to support your comment I'd like to see it.

Did you have any issue with my comment about Russia, not renewables, being responsible for the problem or that that Europe would be worse off now if they had not installed all that renewable capacity?

I don't believe you can make any generalized comment about that.

You think there is a lot of solar power generated in the Chicago area in winter?
What about in Germany?

But if you have some data to support your comment I'd like to see it.

Monthly sunshine hours Germany 2023-2024 | Statista

In Germany, sunshine hours in a month were not as rare as some might think, they just differ by season. Summer sunshine duration has been increasing.

www.statista.com

Did you have any issue with my comment about Russia, not renewables, being responsible for the problem or that that Europe would be worse off now if they had not installed all that renewable capacity?

Yes I do.

The solar and wind facilities in Europe have made the situation BETTER than it would have been had they not been put in place.

They'd be better off if they still had the coal and nuclear plants that they shut down in favor of more expensive, less reliable, wind and solar.

 

[Crick]

I don't believe you can make any generalized comment about that.

You think there is a lot of solar power generated in the Chicago area in winter?
What about in Germany?

But if you have some data to support your comment I'd like to see it.

View attachment 710736

Monthly sunshine hours Germany 2023-2024 | Statista

In Germany, sunshine hours in a month were not as rare as some might think, they just differ by season. Summer sunshine duration has been increasing.

www.statista.com

I said I had found this sort of variation to be location dependent. This seasonal loss of sunlight is zero at the equator and increases as you move towards the poles. Wind is much more regionally variable but in general sees less variation than sunlight.

Did you have any issue with my comment about Russia, not renewables, being responsible for the problem or that that Europe would be worse off now if they had not installed all that renewable capacity?

Yes I do.

The solar and wind facilities in Europe have made the situation BETTER than it would have been had they not been put in place.

They'd be better off if they still had the coal and nuclear plants that they shut down in favor of more expensive, less reliable, wind and solar.

Nuclear plants were not shut down in favor of renewables. From Wikipedia:

A nuclear power phase-out is the discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for energy production. Often initiated because of concerns about nuclear power, phase-outs usually include shutting down nuclear power plants and looking towards fossil fuels and renewable energy. Three nuclear accidents have influenced the discontinuation of nuclear power: the 1979 Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown in the United States, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the USSR (now Ukraine), and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

Following Fukushima, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its 17 reactors and pledged to close the rest by the end of 2022.[2] In late 2021 all but three of the remaining German nuclear power plants were shut down.[3] However, there are no plans to shut down the research reactor in Garching, Forschungsreaktor München II. Italy voted overwhelmingly to keep their country non-nuclear.[4] Switzerland and Spain have banned the construction of new reactors.[5] Japan’s prime minister called for a dramatic reduction in Japan’s reliance on nuclear power.[6] Taiwan province’s governor did the same. Shinzō Abe, the prime minister of Japan from 2012 to 2020, announced a plan to re-start some of the 54 Japanese nuclear power plants (NPPs) and to continue some NPP sites under construction.

The impacts of the nuclear shut-downs on the power generation mix, post-Fukushima, have significantly set back emissions reductions goals in these countries. A recent study of the impacts of the German and Japan phaseouts concludes that by continuing to operate their nuclear plants "these two countries could have prevented 28,000 air pollution-induced deaths and 2400 MtCO2 emissions between 2011 and 2017.""By sharply reducing nuclear instead of coal and gas after Fukushima both countries lost the chance to prevent very large amounts of air pollution-induced deaths and CO2 emissions".[7] As of 2021 Japan planned on restarting 30 reactors by 2030 as well as investing in future SMR development [8]

As of 2016, countries including Australia, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Serbia have no nuclear power stations and remain opposed to nuclear power.[9][10] Germany, Spain and Switzerland plan nuclear phase-outs by 2030.[10][11][12][13] However several countries formerly opposed to opening nuclear programs or planning phaseouts have reversed course in recent years due to climate concerns and energy independence including Belgium,[14][15] the Philippines[16] and Greece.[17] Globally, more nuclear power reactors have closed than opened in recent years[when?] but overall capacity has increased.[12] As Generation II reactors reach the end of their service life, some countries replace them with Generation III reactors or what is deemed "Generation III+ reactors". While Generation IV reactors include small modular reactors, the majority of "evolutionary" designs like the EPR have a higher capacity than comparable reactors of earlier generations. Furthermore, countries like Canada, which decided to refurbish its existing CANDU reactors, among them Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, the most powerful single site nuclear power plant outside Asia, have increased capacity at existing reactors by optimizing efficiency.

As of 2022, Italy is the only country that has permanently closed all of its formerly functioning nuclear plants, with Germany phasing out the remaining 3 plants by the end of the year. Lithuania and Kazakhstan have shut down their only nuclear plants, but plan to build new ones to replace them, while Armenia shut down its only nuclear plant but subsequently restarted it. Austria never used its first nuclear plant that was completely built. Due to financial, political and technical reasons Cuba, Libya, North Korea and Poland never completed the construction of their first nuclear plants (although North Korea and Poland plan to). Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Georgia, Ghana, Ireland, Kuwait, Oman, Peru, Venezuela have planned, but not constructed their first nuclear plants. Between 2005 and 2015 the global production of nuclear power declined by 0.7%.[18][19]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said I had found this sort of variation to be location dependent. This seasonal loss of sunlight is zero at the equator and increases as you move towards the poles. Wind is much more regionally variable but in general sees less variation than sunlight.



Nuclear plants were not shut down in favor of renewables. From Wikipedia:

A nuclear power phase-out is the discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for energy production. Often initiated because of concerns about nuclear power, phase-outs usually include shutting down nuclear power plants and looking towards fossil fuels and renewable energy. Three nuclear accidents have influenced the discontinuation of nuclear power: the 1979 Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown in the United States, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the USSR (now Ukraine), and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

Following Fukushima, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its 17 reactors and pledged to close the rest by the end of 2022.[2] In late 2021 all but three of the remaining German nuclear power plants were shut down.[3] However, there are no plans to shut down the research reactor in Garching, Forschungsreaktor München II. Italy voted overwhelmingly to keep their country non-nuclear.[4] Switzerland and Spain have banned the construction of new reactors.[5] Japan’s prime minister called for a dramatic reduction in Japan’s reliance on nuclear power.[6] Taiwan province’s governor did the same. Shinzō Abe, the prime minister of Japan from 2012 to 2020, announced a plan to re-start some of the 54 Japanese nuclear power plants (NPPs) and to continue some NPP sites under construction.

The impacts of the nuclear shut-downs on the power generation mix, post-Fukushima, have significantly set back emissions reductions goals in these countries. A recent study of the impacts of the German and Japan phaseouts concludes that by continuing to operate their nuclear plants "these two countries could have prevented 28,000 air pollution-induced deaths and 2400 MtCO2 emissions between 2011 and 2017.""By sharply reducing nuclear instead of coal and gas after Fukushima both countries lost the chance to prevent very large amounts of air pollution-induced deaths and CO2 emissions".[7] As of 2021 Japan planned on restarting 30 reactors by 2030 as well as investing in future SMR development [8]

As of 2016, countries including Australia, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Serbia have no nuclear power stations and remain opposed to nuclear power.[9][10] Germany, Spain and Switzerland plan nuclear phase-outs by 2030.[10][11][12][13] However several countries formerly opposed to opening nuclear programs or planning phaseouts have reversed course in recent years due to climate concerns and energy independence including Belgium,[14][15] the Philippines[16] and Greece.[17] Globally, more nuclear power reactors have closed than opened in recent years[when?] but overall capacity has increased.[12] As Generation II reactors reach the end of their service life, some countries replace them with Generation III reactors or what is deemed "Generation III+ reactors". While Generation IV reactors include small modular reactors, the majority of "evolutionary" designs like the EPR have a higher capacity than comparable reactors of earlier generations. Furthermore, countries like Canada, which decided to refurbish its existing CANDU reactors, among them Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, the most powerful single site nuclear power plant outside Asia, have increased capacity at existing reactors by optimizing efficiency.

As of 2022, Italy is the only country that has permanently closed all of its formerly functioning nuclear plants, with Germany phasing out the remaining 3 plants by the end of the year. Lithuania and Kazakhstan have shut down their only nuclear plants, but plan to build new ones to replace them, while Armenia shut down its only nuclear plant but subsequently restarted it. Austria never used its first nuclear plant that was completely built. Due to financial, political and technical reasons Cuba, Libya, North Korea and Poland never completed the construction of their first nuclear plants (although North Korea and Poland plan to). Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Georgia, Ghana, Ireland, Kuwait, Oman, Peru, Venezuela have planned, but not constructed their first nuclear plants. Between 2005 and 2015 the global production of nuclear power declined by 0.7%.[18][19]

I said I had found this sort of variation to be location dependent. This seasonal loss of sunlight is zero at the equator and increases as you move towards the poles.

AFAIK, Germany isn't building any solar generation near the equator.

Nuclear plants were not shut down in favor of renewables.

Green idiocy shut down the nuke plants. Green idiocy is replacing them with wind and solar.

 

[Crick]

I said I had found this sort of variation to be location dependent. This seasonal loss of sunlight is zero at the equator and increases as you move towards the poles.

AFAIK, Germany isn't building any solar generation near the equator.

Nuclear plants were not shut down in favor of renewables.

Green idiocy shut down the nuke plants. Green idiocy is replacing them with wind and solar.

Did you not read the Wikipedia excerpt?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you not read the Wikipedia excerpt?

What about it?

 

[elektra]

I put up more links than do you. In this case, my query was a dig that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Ceres has much broader goals than just renewables and while Representative Cortez and I are in close agreement, politically, I would not count on her for technical details of a subject that broad in scope. If you saw a figure somewhere for $100 trillion, I suspect they would be talking about a great deal more than just the introduction of renewables. Ceres, for instance, is into:
View attachment 710651

My request for a link has really gotten you hot and bothered. Why so? It really makes me think you're pretending outrage to make me and other readers not bother to ask you once again to provide the sort of reference material that this forum actually requires.

I assume when you say renewables, you mean wind, solar and other non-emitting power sources. Those developments are being put up by utilities funded by their own liquid assets and loans. They are not being funded with taxpayer dollars and like the fossil fuel tech before them, they will provide the public a valuable service and make their owners a steady profit at the same time. The switch from fossil fuel to non-emitting renewable sources is simply a targeted investment.

You seem angrier than usual. Have you been drinking? I was just talking with Uncensored 2008 and he was furious about something. Is it perhaps because Trump is going down the tubes?

Not a penny more than we are willing to spend on them. Not one.

Hot and bothered over your request for a link? Hahahaha. You are projecting and stuck in a corner.

And yes ceres is focused on renewables, nice try at deflecting. I have posted links to ceres in the past. My links have all confirmed what I state. There is even a thread on the cost, being trillions. So ypu know as well as I, that I am right.

Where is your links? You got the mouth, back it up, now.

You know everything about renewables, so tell us how much has been spent and how much more you plan on spending.

See, crick wont answer because the cost is $100 trillion dollars.

Crick can predict the weather a hundred years from now but cant predict how much they will spend.

$100 trillion, and we know you have googled for something to disprove this and you came up empty.

 

[abu afak]

Hot and bothered over your request for a link? Hahahaha. You are projecting and stuck in a corner.

And yes ceres is focused on renewables, nice try at deflecting. I have posted links to ceres in the past. My links have all confirmed what I state. There is even a thread on the cost, being trillions. So ypu know as well as I, that I am right.

Where is your links? You got the mouth, back it up, now.

You know everything about renewables, so tell us how much has been spent and how much more you plan on spending.

See, crick wont answer because the cost is $100 trillion dollars.

Crick can predict the weather a hundred years from now but cant predict how much they will spend.

$100 trillion, and we know you have googled for something to disprove this and you came up empty.

I answered you and SYTFU on the last page about "100 Trillion you pice of shlt.

You are claiming solar panels are 100% efficient? Is that your position.

But I caught your teenage strawman trap.

And the OLD "$100 Trillion" no longer makes any sense since solar is now the Cheapest power generator and it's Cost Down 90% in a decade. Unanswered.
(I have several OPs still on page one)

It would not only not "cost" $100 Trillion it would not cost anything, it would end up saving money.
And that's why 85% of the new Power generation money went into renewables in 2021.
As FF plants age and need to be replaced ANYWAY, we ARE replacing with renewable instead of spending the Same 100 Trillion on New Fossil Fuel plants.

Your goofy old MAGAt platitudes are a joke.
-- - --

So just repeated your LIE on the next page.
`

 

[elektra]

The undoubtedly explains their continued explosive growth.

Free money from taxpayers is the explanation of the explosive growth.

Every single solar and wind project has been built with generous amounts of money that comes from our taxes and our electric bills.

$100 trillion, that explains the explosive growth. The greed over the government/public pie

 

[elektra]

I answered you and SYTFU on the last page about "100 Trillion you pice of shlt.



But I caught your teenage strawman trap.

And the OLD "$100 Trillion" no longer makes any sense since solar is now the Cheapest power generator and it's Cost Down 90% in a decade. Unanswered.
(I have several OPs still on page one)

It would not only not "cost" $100 Trillion it would not cost anything, it would end up saving money.
And that's why 85% of the new Power generation money went into renewables in 2021.
As FF plants age and need to be replaced ANYWAY, we ARE replacing with renewable instead of spending the Same 100 Trillion on New Fossil Fuel plants.

Your goofy old MAGAt platitudes are a joke.
-- - --

So just repeated your LIE on the next page.
`

Fossil plants dont need replacing. They can operate 50 to 100 years.

How much has been spent and how much more needs to be spent

You know everything so give us the numbers

I bet the cost is too large, that is why you cant.

 

[elektra]

Nuclear plants were not shut down in favor of renewables. From Wikipedia:

A nuclear power phase-out is the discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for energy production. Often initiated because of concerns about nuclear power, phase-outs usually include shutting down nuclear power plants and looking towards fossil fuels and renewable energy.

It says right in your link, your quote, that nuclear is being shutdown in favor of renewables

This is the problem for those quick to use google. They dont have knowledge so they think just cause they googled their thought, got a link, cut/paste it confirms what they believe. They dont even read what the post.

Read crick, read. We will help with the big words

 

[elektra]

I answered you and SYTFU on the last page about "100 Trillion you pice of shlt.

It would not only not "cost" $100 Trillion it would not cost anything, it would end up saving money.

hahahaha, it was all free!

thank you for the educated answer, soon our electric bills will quit going up, soon we will pay nothing for electricity.

Solar and wind have been free all this time, thank you for showing your superior intelligence.

 

[Moonglow]

Don’t ask the birds.


Of California’s 23 vulnerable bird species studied (barn owls, golden eagles, road runners, yellow-billed cuckoos…), scientists have found 11 are now experiencing at least a 20% decline in their population growth rates because wind turbines and solar panels are killing them and/or destroying their limited-range habitat.


California’s mild-winter Mediterranean climate is home to some of Earth’s rarest bird ecosystems.

But California is also where some of the most ardent supporters of “green” energy policies reside.

Disproportionately due to California’s activist-level insistence on converting their energy infrastructure from fossil-fuel-based to renewables-based, the US as a whole has facilitated a 300% to 9,400% increase in wind and solar energy generation, respectively, from 2009 to 2019. Nation-wide, the solar power industry alone is poised to detonate from a 0.4 GW energy capacity in 2009 to 75 GW by 2025.

New Study: Wind, Solar Energy Now Killing 48% Of Priority Bird Species With ‘Population-Level Effects’

scientists have found 11 are now experiencing at least a 20% decline in their population growth rates because wind turbines and solar panels are killing them and/or destroying their limited-range h…

wattsupwiththat.com

Window strikes kill 97 to 180 million birds a year, are you advocating we get rid of windows on houses?

 

[Crick]

Window strikes kill 97 to 180 million birds a year, are you advocating we get rid of windows on houses?

It's not like windows do anything for us. I've been in plenty of buildings with no windows. And except for that creeping miasma of depression and melancholia and the scraping fingernail effect of flickering fluorescents, you'd never even notice they were missing...