How’s That Wind Power Working Out for You?

[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.

You state you abswered my question, I am sure you think you have but you being the dumbest amongst us I will type slow and make it clearer for you.

i did not ask how much cheaper are renewables then they were before.

I will make it real clear for your tiny mind.

How much have we spent on renewables

How much more will we spend on renewables.

In dollars, go ahead and answer both questions and I give you permission to use the heavily biased google.

 

[jc456]

This morning at about 5:45

still waiting on your answer abu.

 

[Crick]

You state you abswered my question, I am sure you think you have but you being the dumbest amongst us I will type slow and make it clearer for you.

i did not ask how much cheaper are renewables then they were before.

I will make it real clear for your tiny mind.

How much have we spent on renewables

How much more will we spend on renewables.

In dollars, go ahead and answer both questions and I give you permission to use the heavily biased google.

How much more will we spend on renewables? Between now and when? Tomorrow? Next month? The year 2273?

How much have we spent on fossil fuels? How much more will we spend on fossil fuels?

How much have we spent on fusion reactors? How much more will we spend on fusion reactors?

How much have we spent on responding to droughts, flooding, storms, rising sea levels, disappearing ice, fresh water supplies, failed crops, heat waves, etc, etc, etc?

You're really in no position to accuse anyone else of being dumb.

 

[jc456]

How much more will we spend on renewables? Between now and when? Tomorrow? Next month? The year 2273?

How much have we spent on fossil fuels? How much more will we spend on fossil fuels?

How much have we spent on fusion reactors? How much more will we spend on fusion reactors?

How much have we spent on responding to droughts, flooding, storms, rising sea levels, disappearing ice, fresh water supplies, failed crops, heat waves, etc, etc, etc?

You're really in no position to accuse anyone else of being dumb.

so you're saying that we can eliminate droughts, floods, storms and rising sea levels by buying renewables? How does that work? how does a renewable stop all of that?

 

[elektra]

How much more will we spend on renewables? Between now and when? Tomorrow? Next month? The year 2273?

How much have we spent on fossil fuels? How much more will we spend on fossil fuels?

How much have we spent on fusion reactors? How much more will we spend on fusion reactors?

How much have we spent on responding to droughts, flooding, storms, rising sea levels, disappearing ice, fresh water supplies, failed crops, heat waves, etc, etc, etc?

You're really in no position to accuse anyone else of being dumb.

Yet here we are, you proclaim to know the temperature a 100 years from now and the solution is to build, build, and build.

When asked for what has been spent, from you, the expert, when asked what you intend to spend, you act like a big stupid dummy.

Yet you know enough to tell me I am wrong when I quote ceres or the Democrats?

So, yes, I am in a position to call you dumb, when you tell me I am wrong on what is proposed to be spen, but you can not and will not tell us how much has been or will be spent.

I am in no position, yet you were the one who challenged me, asked for a link, and had I provided a link you would of come up with links to show I am wrong, correct!

But when you are asked, or challenged, then it is still the person who challenges your opinion that is wrong, when you can do nothing but deflect and ignore. You are pathetic. Because you asked for links, when you can not link yourself, that is the definition of dumb and pathetic, your actions, crick.

 

[elektra]

abu afk and cricket have been challenged to show us, the cost of renewables. They refuse to answer.

The cost is so astronomical that they can not, and will not answer.

They do claim they are cheap, yet they wont explain why it costs us more to buy electricity from renewables.

Renewables, utilities are forced to pay 1000% more for renewables. Yet we got a few people here who lie through their teeth.

Want an example, I can show the cost by using Block island. The first offshore wind farm, utilities must pay a 1000% more for that electricity than the going rate. If renewables are so cheap, why does the government force the utilities, us, to pay such extreme prices.

 

[jc456]

abu afk and cricket have been challenged to show us, the cost of renewables. They refuse to answer.

The cost is so astronomical that they can not, and will not answer.

They do claim they are cheap, yet they wont explain why it costs us more to buy electricity from renewables.

Renewables, utilities are forced to pay 1000% more for renewables. Yet we got a few people here who lie through their teeth.

Want an example, I can show the cost by using Block island. The first offshore wind farm, utilities must pay a 1000% more for that electricity than the going rate. If renewables are so cheap, why does the government force the utilities, us, to pay such extreme prices.

Crick and abu are the same person

 

[abu afak]

Renewable energy​

Oklahoma generated 45% of its total electricity from renewable resources in 2021.

Oklahoma generated 45% of its total in-state electricity from renewable resources in 2021, an increase from about 10% in 2011. About 91% of the state's renewable generation came from Wind energy, but other renewable energy resources contributed to in-state generation, including hydropower and, to a lesser extent, biomass and solar energy.85

In 2021, wind energy accounted for 41% of Oklahoma's total in-state electricity net generation, a larger share than in all but Three other states—Iowa, South Dakota, and Kansas.86 megawatts of wind capacity, which was 85% of Oklahoma's total generating capacity from all renewable resources.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis​

`

 

[jc456]

Renewable energy​

Oklahoma generated 45% of its total electricity from renewable resources in 2021.

Oklahoma generated 45% of its total in-state electricity from renewable resources in 2021, an increase from about 10% in 2011. About 91% of the state's renewable generation came from Wind energy, but other renewable energy resources contributed to in-state generation, including hydropower and, to a lesser extent, biomass and solar energy.85

In 2021, wind energy accounted for 41% of Oklahoma's total in-state electricity net generation, a larger share than in all but Three other states—Iowa, South Dakota, and Kansas.86 megawatts of wind capacity, which was 85% of Oklahoma's total generating capacity from all renewable resources.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis​

`

Naw. Fantasy

 

[Crick]

abu afk and cricket have been challenged to show us, the cost of renewables. They refuse to answer.

I guess neither one of us is willing to answer a question that stupid. I did respond. I guess you didn't like my response.

The cost is so astronomical that they can not, and will not answer.

I think you may have it pegged there. The question is so poor there is no way to answer it. Thus I am unable to answer it and thus I do not.

They do claim they are cheap, yet they wont explain why it costs us more to buy electricity from renewables.

PV these days is cheaper per kWh than fossil fuel power. As to what you pay for things, there is no way I can know. It seems like a personal problem.

Renewables, utilities are forced to pay 1000% more for renewables.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you think electrical utilities pay 10 times as much for power they get from renewable sources than they do from fossil fuel. Hmm... let's check.

"The key insight from this 2020 edition is that the levelised costs of electricity generation of low- carbon generation technologies are falling and are increasingly below the costs of conventional fossil fuel generation. Renewable energy costs have continued to decrease in recent years. With the assumed moderate emission costs of USD 30/tCO2 their costs are now competitive, in LCOE terms, with dispatchable fossil fuel-based electricity generation in many countries.2 In particular, this report shows that onshore wind is expected to have, on average, the lowest levelised costs of electricity generation in 2025. Although costs vary strongly from country to country, this is true for a majority of countries (10 out of 14). Also solar PV, if deployed at large scales and under favourable climatic conditions, can be very cost competitive. Offshore wind is experiencing a major cost decrease compared to the previous edition. Whereas five years ago, the median LCOE still exceeded USD 150/MWh, it is now significantly below USD 100/MWh and therefore in a competitive range. Both hydro technologies analyses (run of river and reservoir) can provide competitive alternatives where suitable sites exist, but costs remain very site-specific. The result of IEA’s value adjusted LCOE (VALCOE) metric show however, that the system value of variable renewables such as wind and solar decreases as their share in the power supply increases."

Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 – Analysis - IEA

Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.

www.iea.org

"An article by Dominic Dudley in Forbes explains this further. He says the cost of electricity from developing new fossil fuel plants ranges from $0.05/kWh to $0.15/kWh. By comparison, hydroelectric power comes in at an average of $0.05/kWh, onshore wind, solar voltaic, biomass and geothermal below $0.10/kWh and offshore wind at $0.13/kWh."

Cost of Renewable Energy: Does Clean Energy Cost More? | Inspire Clean Energy

What is the real cost of renewable energy, and is there a way to invest? Learn if clean energy does cost more and what you get if you switch to an alternative energy provider.

www.inspirecleanenergy.com

"The share of renewable energy that achieved lower costs than the most competitive fossil fuel option doubled in 2020, a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows. 162 gigawatts (GW) or 62 per cent of total renewable power generation added last year had lower costs than the cheapest new fossil fuel option.
More to the point, the cost of clean energy sources is falling year-on-year and will continue to do so as infrastructure develops. Solar power is falling by 13% year-on-year, and wind by 9%."

Majority of New Renewables Undercut Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost

Countries urged to power past coal as new report confirms renewables would bring cost savings of USD 156 billion to emerging economies.

www.irena.org

So... I'm going to have to suggest that if your utility told you they're paying ten times as much for renewable power, they're lying to you.

Yet we got a few people here who lie through their teeth.

Like, whoever told you that renewables cost ten times as much as fossil fuel.

Want an example, I can show the cost by using Block island. The first offshore wind farm, utilities must pay a 1000% more for that electricity than the going rate. If renewables are so cheap, why does the government force the utilities, us, to pay such extreme prices.

I couldn't tell you. But I think part of the problem is that you're attempting to generalize worldwide from a single facility.

 

[jc456]

I guess neither one of us is willing to answer a question that stupid. I did respond. I guess you didn't like my response.

Since you are the same person sure you won’t, can’t back up anything you post, it’s guaranteed

 

[Crick]

Since you are the same person sure you won’t, can’t back up anything you post, it’s guaranteed

Would you like to do a one-on-one comparison, between you and me, for average number of linked sources per post?

 

[abu afak]

abu afk and cricket have been challenged to show us, the cost of renewables. They refuse to answer.

The cost is so astronomical that they can not, and will not answer.

They do claim they are cheap, yet they wont explain why it costs us more to buy electricity from renewables.

Renewables, utilities are forced to pay 1000% more for renewables. Yet we got a few people here who lie through their teeth.

Want an example, I can show the cost by using Block island. The first offshore wind farm, utilities must pay a 1000% more for that electricity than the going rate. If renewables are so cheap, why does the government force the utilities, us, to pay such extreme prices.

I've showed the Comparison Many times and kicked you multi-posting @ss every time
That's why you just stealth-mentioned me you empty shltbag.
Here's another you COWARDLY POS who didn't quote or tag me so I could answer.
You're FILTH and you know you can't debate me.

Wind and Solar Are Saving Texans $20 Million a Day​

August 3, 2022
By Mark Dyson

In a year of record-high prices for fossil fuels, as lawmakers consider new policies that can help fight inflation, renewable energy is already helping to shield Americans from steep jumps in their electricity bills.

For example, in Texas, even as some observers have incorrectly blamed renewables for the state’s strained power grid, More than a Third of electricity in the first half of 2022 came from Wind and Solar projects. Wind and Solar have both set records already this year.

High production from renewables and high fossil fuel prices together mean wind and solar are having an outsized impact on lowering energy costs. Based on benchmark natural gas prices, RMI estimates that, on average, wind and solar projects in Texas have avoided $20 million per day in fuel that otherwise would have been needed for fossil fuel-based power plants to meet electricity demand...

Wind and Solar Are Saving Texans $20 Million a Day - RMI

Wind and solar projects in Texas have avoided $20 million per day in fuel costs to meet electricity demand.

rmi.org

`

 

[jc456]

Would you like to do a one-on-one comparison, between you and me, for average number of linked sources per post?

I'm not sure the relevance since that is objective to either party. What I will say is let's go one-on-one with answering a direct question following a post. Game?

 

[jc456]

I've showed the Comparison Many times and kicked you multi-posting @ss every time
That's why you just stealth-mentioned me you empty shltbag.

just post the post number you did that? It's obvious that neither he nor I have seen it. Stop hiding.

 

[jc456]

In a year of record-high prices for fossil fuels, as lawmakers consider new policies that can help fight inflation, renewable energy is already helping to shield Americans from steep jumps in their electricity bills.

so friend, how is it dropping electricity costs? You still haven't provided it.

 

[jc456]

High production from renewables and high fossil fuel prices together mean wind and solar are having an outsized impact on lowering energy costs. Based on benchmark natural gas prices, RMI estimates that, on average, wind and solar projects in Texas have avoided $20 million per day in fuel that otherwise would have been needed for fossil fuel-based power plants to meet electricity demand...

what was the cost of the renewable energy resources? i.e., the cost of the wind turbines? The installation costs? The upkeep costs? Still haven't answered that? Still hiding.

 

[jc456]

I guess neither one of us is willing to answer a question that stupid. I did respond. I guess you didn't like my response.

you say you did, but can't give the post you did it in. Why?

For your information, if it costs money to buy the fuel for gas and coal, it cost money to buy the wind turbines and solar panels with installation costs. These you wish to ignore. That's lying.

 

[Crick]

I'm not sure the relevance since that is objective to either party. What I will say is let's go one-on-one with answering a direct question following a post. Game?

The relevance of that would be to answer the unfounded (ie bullshit) accusation you just made asshole. Bye.

 

[jc456]

The relevance of that would be to answer the unfounded (ie bullshit) accusation you just made asshole. Bye.

you are the most biased warmer in here. That's saying a lot. It is obvious you don't want to have an open discussion; you merely wish to preach like you have the presence of authority which you do not have. In fact, you are scared of folks like me because I won't cave to your nonsense. My counter arguments give you no links to go grab to back up your story. You say you have a list of climate scientists and what you post is a link to is a summary report authored by chemists and geologists and whatever other type science is available to be from. As far as I could find on the WWW, there aren't climate scientists, there are scientists and geologists who portray themselves as climate authority who, by the way, are almost all funded by government money. How ironic. But you stay your biased self and don't think for a moment I won't continue to critique your nonsense.