More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[westwall]

You two nitwits make it clear that the correct title of this thread should really be "More Proof the 'Skeptics' are INSANE"

I note you edited out the KQED video... Didn't watch it did ya? Because if you DID -- you wouldn't be calling folks who care about that bird carnage at Altamonte Pass nitwits. Don't think you EVER read or comment on evidence that's not tasty to you.

You know who NITWITS are??? Idiots that allow an 4000 turbine wind farm to be built right next door to the largest Golden Eagle brooding center in North America.. Now THOSE are certified NITWITS...

Oh fecalhead, you and FoolishBoobie are sooooo clueless and brainwashed. You are too ignorant to have any awareness of the context or the proportions of the different ways that our human activities and other factors cause bird kills so you're easy meat for the fossil fuel industry propagandist who want to stifle their competition.

Do wind turbines kill birds?

With U.S. dependency on foreign oil getting uncomfortably close to crisis levels, any viable alternative energy source is looking pretty good. With environmental damage from coal and gas-derived power already at crisis levels, even alternatives that are decades off are looking pretty great. Wind power, a viable energy source that costs far less than nuclear and coal power and contributes almost no pollutants to the environment, seems to many of us to be almost ideal.

But there are some people who disagree and are fighting the installation of new wind turbines in the United States. They cite bird mortality as an unacceptable side effect of wind-generated power. Through lawsuits and protests against pending legislation, they hope to save huge numbers of birds from death at the blades of massive wind turbines.

To most experts, though, there's a problem with the bird-mortality argument: The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake:

(U.S.)
Man-made structure/technology - Associated bird deaths per year

Feral and domestic cats - Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines - 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial) - 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides - 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles - 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers - 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines - 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

The AWEA numbers are horse manure. They know it. You know it, and more importantly so does everyone else.

 

[RollingThunder]

I note you edited out the KQED video... Didn't watch it did ya? Because if you DID -- you wouldn't be calling folks who care about that bird carnage at Altamonte Pass nitwits. Don't think you EVER read or comment on evidence that's not tasty to you.

You know who NITWITS are??? Idiots that allow an 4000 turbine wind farm to be built right next door to the largest Golden Eagle brooding center in North America.. Now THOSE are certified NITWITS...

Oh fecalhead, you and FoolishBoobie are sooooo clueless and brainwashed. You are too ignorant to have any awareness of the context or the proportions of the different ways that our human activities and other factors cause bird kills so you're easy meat for the fossil fuel industry propagandist who want to stifle their competition.

Do wind turbines kill birds?

With U.S. dependency on foreign oil getting uncomfortably close to crisis levels, any viable alternative energy source is looking pretty good. With environmental damage from coal and gas-derived power already at crisis levels, even alternatives that are decades off are looking pretty great. Wind power, a viable energy source that costs far less than nuclear and coal power and contributes almost no pollutants to the environment, seems to many of us to be almost ideal.

But there are some people who disagree and are fighting the installation of new wind turbines in the United States. They cite bird mortality as an unacceptable side effect of wind-generated power. Through lawsuits and protests against pending legislation, they hope to save huge numbers of birds from death at the blades of massive wind turbines.

To most experts, though, there's a problem with the bird-mortality argument: The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake:

(U.S.)
Man-made structure/technology - Associated bird deaths per year

Feral and domestic cats - Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines - 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial) - 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides - 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles - 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers - 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines - 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

The AWEA numbers are horse manure. They know it. You know it, and more importantly so does everyone else.

I know you're a retarded nutjob who just makes things up to try to support your braindead denier cult bullshit, so I'd certainly trust their figures over anything you say, walleyed.

Here's a published scientific paper on this topic.

Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity
Benjamin K. Sovacool, Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation,
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
Energy Policy - Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2009, Pages 2241–2248

Abstract
This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies.

 

[skookerasbil]

More k00k losing........dang......I find something every day!!!


It?s Not Just Winter, It?s a New Ice Age

 

[skookerasbil]

1,200 posts and climbing!! Domination by the clueless, denier, braindead cult!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

What Do Green Groups Want More: Saving the Planet or Saving the Senate? - NationalJournal.com



yuk.......yuk........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know that fossil fuels are subsidized, right.

Where is the financial analysis that I asked for?

What subsidies do fossil fuels receive? Spell them out.

Oh jeez, Toadthepatsy, are you in the fourth grade or just retarded?

Energy subsidies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers. Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies. The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.

The global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion and renewable energy subsidies $88 billion in 2011.[1]

Types of energy subsidies are:

* Direct financial transfers – grants to producers; grants to consumers; low-interest or preferential loans to producers.

* Preferential tax treatments – rebates or exemption on royalties, duties, producer levies and tariffs; tax credit; accelerated depreciation allowances on energy supply equipment.

* Trade restrictions – quota, technical restrictions and trade embargoes.

* Energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost – direct investment in energy infrastructure; public research and development.

* Regulation of the energy sector – demand guarantees and mandated deployment rates; price controls; market-access restrictions; preferential planning consent and controls over access to resources.

* Failure to impose external costs – environmental externality costs; energy security risks and price volatility costs.[4]

* Depletion Allowance – allows a deduction from gross income of up to ~27% for the depletion of exhaustible resources (oil, gas, minerals).

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[7] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950-2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefitted most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefitted heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefitted from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefitted from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[8] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
1. Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
2. Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
3. Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:
1. Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
2. Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
3. Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

From civilian nuclear power to hydro, wind, solar, and shale gas, the United States federal government has played a central role in the development of new energy industries.[20]


Has there ever been a level energy playing field? Putting renewables subsidies in context
20 Aug 2012
(excerpts)
In a 2011 study of historical US energy subsidies published by DBL Investors, Nancy Pfund and Ben Healy analyse US federal government support for various energy industries during their formative years. For the coal industry this meant cheap land grants in the 19th century. For oil and gas it was tax incentives during the first half of the 20th century, followed by costs of regulation, civillian R&D and liability risk-shifting among others for nuclear power from the late 1940s. Finally, for modern renewables it was tax incentives from the early 1990s onward. Drawing on government, academic and NGO sources, Pfund and Healy find that when the first 15 years of subsidy life are compared, government support for the oil, gas and nuclear industries as a percentage of inflation-adjusted federal spending far outweighed the support granted to renewables. Taking a longer-term view and again adjusting for inflation, the authors find that between 1918 and 2009, the oil and gas industry received a cumulative $446.96 billion in subsidies compared to just $5.93 billion given to renewables in the years between 1994 and 2009. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry benefitted from a cumulative $185.38 billion in federal subsidies between 1947 and 1999.

Pfund and Healy conclude:

"Current renewable energy subsidies do not constitute an over-subsidized outlier when compared to the historical norm for emerging sources of energy. Rather […], federal incentives for early fossil fuel production and the nascent nuclear industry were much more robust than the support provided to renewables today."​

The study doesn't just highlight the advantage the federal government gave oil, gas and nuclear in the form of subsidies. It also shows that the government continued the financial support as these industries matured, arguably enshrining a market distortion. Pfund and Healy uncover evidence of direct and indirect coal subsidies reaching back as far as 1789 when the US federal government enacted a tariff on imported coal. Coal is not included in the final total of subsidy amounts, however, due to a lack of reliable data reaching back to the industry's formative years in the early 1800s. But it's clear that coal continues to receive subsidies more than 200 years after the height of the Industrial Revolution. The US Energy Information Administration tallied federal government subsidies to the coal industry at $3.17 billion in 2007.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
1. Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
2. Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
3. Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

1)All corporations can deduct taxes paid to foreign governments.
3)All corporations can deduct legitimate business expenses.

2)I agree, they should stop giving oil companies special credits for working on non-conventional fuels like corn and cellulosic ethanol.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More k00k losing........dang......I find something every day!!!


It?s Not Just Winter, It?s a New Ice Age

Japan slashes greenhouse gas reduction target

Tokyo said the new target for 2020 -- 3.8 percent below 2005 levels -- replaces an ambitious goal to slash emissions by one-quarter from 1990 levels.

The new target, which accounts for idling the country's nuclear reactors after the worst atomic accident in a generation, represents about a three percent rise over levels in 1990, the base year for the Kyoto Protocol, according to the environment ministry.

LOL!

 

[freedombecki]

You two nitwits make it clear that the correct title of this thread should really be "More Proof the 'Skeptics' are INSANE"

I note you edited out the KQED video... Didn't watch it did ya? Because if you DID -- you wouldn't be calling folks who care about that bird carnage at Altamonte Pass nitwits. Don't think you EVER read or comment on evidence that's not tasty to you.

You know who NITWITS are??? Idiots that allow an 4000 turbine wind farm to be built right next door to the largest Golden Eagle brooding center in North America.. Now THOSE are certified NITWITS...

Oh fecalhead, you and FoolishBoobie are sooooo clueless and brainwashed. You are too ignorant to have any awareness of the context or the proportions of the different ways that our human activities and other factors cause bird kills so you're easy meat for the fossil fuel industry propagandist who want to stifle their competition.

Do wind turbines kill birds?

With U.S. dependency on foreign oil getting uncomfortably close to crisis levels, any viable alternative energy source is looking pretty good. With environmental damage from coal and gas-derived power already at crisis levels, even alternatives that are decades off are looking pretty great. Wind power, a viable energy source that costs far less than nuclear and coal power and contributes almost no pollutants to the environment, seems to many of us to be almost ideal.

But there are some people who disagree and are fighting the installation of new wind turbines in the United States. They cite bird mortality as an unacceptable side effect of wind-generated power. Through lawsuits and protests against pending legislation, they hope to save huge numbers of birds from death at the blades of massive wind turbines.

To most experts, though, there's a problem with the bird-mortality argument: The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake:

(U.S.)
Man-made structure/technology - Associated bird deaths per year

Feral and domestic cats - Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines - 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial) - 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides - 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles - 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers - 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines - 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

Ever seen a picture of a swan that was decapitated in the UK? The ornithologists there forced a wind farm out of their opportunistic area right next to swan breeding grounds. The pictures are not a pretty sight. The carcasses are gone in 48 hours due to carrion feeders.

Green companies keep what little evidence there is of large, endangered birds killed by their turbines out of sight that their myths may be perpetuated as cause for their inefficient delivery of power when needed may be marginalized as evidence their systems do not work when demand is at its peak.

To address your silly figures, green energy "scientists" lose their jobs when they rat out the truth to the press about the decimation of species that these seemingly innocent purveyors of inefficient power continue draining societies of capital that bring jobs to their countries.

What a nice little prophecy of screaming "show me real proof" is, when the figures are so skewed by bad ventures that will eventually go out of business anyway due to inefficient delivery in times of stress.

Every little creature is a gift from God.



These little boxer crabs won't have a chance when undersea turbines rev up and wipe them out in crucial breeding areas of their existence. What will you do when the greenies go after their habitat?

 

[PMZ]

You need proof that windpower is more expensive?
I should think the massive subsidies it needs are proof enough.
You know that energy cheaper than fossil fuels needs no subsidy, right?

You know that fossil fuels are subsidized, right.

Where is the financial analysis that I asked for?

Shilling for info for your term paper at someone else's expense?

Naughty, naughty!

I wouldn't trust that source for anyone's term paper.

 

[PMZ]

Given AGW and peak oil, why would any corporation or person oppose the inevitable change from temporary energy sources to permanent energy sources?

Our, as that question is typically framed, what's in it for them?

The answer to that is almost always money.

The source of their payoffs is the same. We, the people.

For fossil fuel corporations, every carbon molecule still on earth, as compared to in the atmosphere where they relocate them to, is a unit of profit. And, as the decisions that we make on energy sources are measured in decades, as they are based on the machinery necessary to extract the energy from its source, the decision is made a decade or so before realization, and determines fuel use for many decades after. What fossil fuel companies have to do to ensure their profitability is to make sure that there will always be machinery out there demanding their fuel, until the last molecule has been turned into profit.

The denialists payoff is different. Theirs is the risk that some of every dollar spent on machinery to harvest energy from permanent sources comes from their wallets, whereby the benefit is more to their children and grandchildren, than to them.

So, it's all about money. And the corporate and personal greed that stems from, it's only and always about me.

A pitiful revelation about the miasma that conservatives have brought about in American culture.

 

[freedombecki]

You know that fossil fuels are subsidized, right.

Where is the financial analysis that I asked for?

Shilling for info for your term paper at someone else's expense?

Naughty, naughty!

I wouldn't trust that source for anyone's term paper.

That's because you're in cahoots with people who have zero morality when it comes to reporting truth. Truth seems to be anything that gets in the way of their collecting undeserved foundation moneys procured by a systematic alteration of reports to the point of being fiction.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh fecalhead, you and FoolishBoobie are sooooo clueless and brainwashed. You are too ignorant to have any awareness of the context or the proportions of the different ways that our human activities and other factors cause bird kills so you're easy meat for the fossil fuel industry propagandist who want to stifle their competition.

Do wind turbines kill birds?

With U.S. dependency on foreign oil getting uncomfortably close to crisis levels, any viable alternative energy source is looking pretty good. With environmental damage from coal and gas-derived power already at crisis levels, even alternatives that are decades off are looking pretty great. Wind power, a viable energy source that costs far less than nuclear and coal power and contributes almost no pollutants to the environment, seems to many of us to be almost ideal.

But there are some people who disagree and are fighting the installation of new wind turbines in the United States. They cite bird mortality as an unacceptable side effect of wind-generated power. Through lawsuits and protests against pending legislation, they hope to save huge numbers of birds from death at the blades of massive wind turbines.

To most experts, though, there's a problem with the bird-mortality argument: The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake:

(U.S.)
Man-made structure/technology - Associated bird deaths per year

Feral and domestic cats - Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines - 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial) - 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides - 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles - 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers - 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines - 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

The AWEA numbers are horse manure. They know it. You know it, and more importantly so does everyone else.

I know you're a retarded nutjob who just makes things up to try to support your braindead denier cult bullshit, so I'd certainly trust their figures over anything you say, walleyed.

Here's a published scientific paper on this topic.

Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity
Benjamin K. Sovacool, Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation,
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
Energy Policy - Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2009, Pages 2241–2248

Abstract
This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies.

Actually... The argument isn't even DEPENDENT on gross numbers.. They are bad enough.
But we SHOULD BE talking about ENVIRO impact on territories and breeding grounds..

THAT is the issue.. Species that ARE NOT migratory and are being EXTERMINATED from their range whenever a wind farm shows up.. The kill rates are ENOUGH to guarantee that in short order --- that area of turf will be VOID of that stationary breeding specie.

Real simple Princess --- A massive wind farm will DENY THAT HABITAT to the resident avian species that breed there.

Any other man-built structures would be DENIED a permit.. But you folks simply dont give a shit ---- do ya?

 

[PMZ]

Tell PMZ to go read about the $Bill that California is plowing into Battery Farms just to try to preserve their investments in wind and solar. The costs are not even Tallied yet..

There's a thread "Renewables get more expensive in Cali" that shows you what extremes are gonna be required to attempt to put even MORE of the flaky power on their grid..

The need for storage is about load timing. There's much higher demand during the day, when solar and wind are peaking than at night.

One of the biggest storage capacities available will, in the future, be the batteries in millions of electric cars, that can be moved from day or night by simple rate changes.

 

[PMZ]

Shilling for info for your term paper at someone else's expense?

Naughty, naughty!

I wouldn't trust that source for anyone's term paper.

That's because you're in cahoots with people who have zero morality when it comes to reporting truth. Truth seems to be anything that gets in the way of their collecting undeserved foundation moneys procured by a systematic alteration of reports to the point of being fiction.

You mean as compared to Fox Opinions, propagandist to the GOP?

 

[PMZ]

The AWEA numbers are horse manure. They know it. You know it, and more importantly so does everyone else.

I know you're a retarded nutjob who just makes things up to try to support your braindead denier cult bullshit, so I'd certainly trust their figures over anything you say, walleyed.

Here's a published scientific paper on this topic.

Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity
Benjamin K. Sovacool, Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation,
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
Energy Policy - Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2009, Pages 2241–2248

Abstract
This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies.

Actually... The argument isn't even DEPENDENT on gross numbers.. They are bad enough.
But we SHOULD BE talking about ENVIRO impact on territories and breeding grounds..

THAT is the issue.. Species that ARE NOT migratory and are being EXTERMINATED from their range whenever a wind farm shows up.. The kill rates are ENOUGH to guarantee that in short order --- that area of turf will be VOID of that stationary breeding specie.

Real simple Princess --- A massive wind farm will DENY THAT HABITAT to the resident avian species that breed there.

Any other man-built structures would be DENIED a permit.. But you folks simply dont give a shit ---- do ya?

Minor stuff compared to the alternative. AGW.

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell PMZ to go read about the $Bill that California is plowing into Battery Farms just to try to preserve their investments in wind and solar. The costs are not even Tallied yet..

There's a thread "Renewables get more expensive in Cali" that shows you what extremes are gonna be required to attempt to put even MORE of the flaky power on their grid..

The need for storage is about load timing. There's much higher demand during the day, when solar and wind are peaking than at night.

One of the biggest storage capacities available will, in the future, be the batteries in millions of electric cars, that can be moved from day or night by simple rate changes.

You're a true moron.. EVs are not part of the solution.. They represent about a potential LOAD INCREASE of about 33%. You are correct that solar and wind are merely PEAKER Sources of power --- not ALTERNATIVES.. You cannot even USE measurable amounts of wind on the grid without SOME storage unless you want to dump it into the ground when it spikes. CURRENTLY --- there's not enough to matter. But as Cali and Germany are discovering --- that limit to wind comes into play REAL QUICK. And it's literally gonna EASILY DOUBLE the cost of installed wind capacity.. All for a tech that HAS TO HAVE a 100% 24/7/365 REAL generator to carry the demand reliably..

In fact in Japan --- where they LISTEN TO ENGINEERS AND NOT ECO-FRAUDS --- they never ALLOWED ANY WIND on their grid without a minimal amount of battery storage on site. You are promoting a hyped up fraud that will create a MONUMENTAL NEW waste stream falling upon the environment..

 

[PMZ]

Tell PMZ to go read about the $Bill that California is plowing into Battery Farms just to try to preserve their investments in wind and solar. The costs are not even Tallied yet..

There's a thread "Renewables get more expensive in Cali" that shows you what extremes are gonna be required to attempt to put even MORE of the flaky power on their grid..

The need for storage is about load timing. There's much higher demand during the day, when solar and wind are peaking than at night.

One of the biggest storage capacities available will, in the future, be the batteries in millions of electric cars, that can be moved from day or night by simple rate changes.

You're a true moron.. EVs are not part of the solution.. They represent about a potential LOAD INCREASE of about 33%. You are correct that solar and wind are merely PEAKER Sources of power --- not ALTERNATIVES.. You cannot even USE measurable amounts of wind on the grid without SOME storage unless you want to dump it into the ground when it spikes. CURRENTLY --- there's not enough to matter. But as Cali and Germany are discovering --- that limit to wind comes into play REAL QUICK. And it's literally gonna EASILY DOUBLE the cost of installed wind capacity.. All for a tech that HAS TO HAVE a 100% 24/7/365 REAL generator to carry the demand reliably..

In fact in Japan --- where they LISTEN TO ENGINEERS AND NOT ECO-FRAUDS --- they never ALLOWED ANY WIND on their grid without a minimal amount of battery storage on site. You are promoting a hyped up fraud that will create a MONUMENTAL NEW waste stream falling upon the environment..

EVs are inevitable. They will replace fuel burners. The only variable is rate.

You insist on acting like the 20th century just began. Seemingly unlimited fossil fuels and the consequences of their waste not yet known.

You are intellectually obsolete.

 

[flacaltenn]

The need for storage is about load timing. There's much higher demand during the day, when solar and wind are peaking than at night.

One of the biggest storage capacities available will, in the future, be the batteries in millions of electric cars, that can be moved from day or night by simple rate changes.

You're a true moron.. EVs are not part of the solution.. They represent about a potential LOAD INCREASE of about 33%. You are correct that solar and wind are merely PEAKER Sources of power --- not ALTERNATIVES.. You cannot even USE measurable amounts of wind on the grid without SOME storage unless you want to dump it into the ground when it spikes. CURRENTLY --- there's not enough to matter. But as Cali and Germany are discovering --- that limit to wind comes into play REAL QUICK. And it's literally gonna EASILY DOUBLE the cost of installed wind capacity.. All for a tech that HAS TO HAVE a 100% 24/7/365 REAL generator to carry the demand reliably..

In fact in Japan --- where they LISTEN TO ENGINEERS AND NOT ECO-FRAUDS --- they never ALLOWED ANY WIND on their grid without a minimal amount of battery storage on site. You are promoting a hyped up fraud that will create a MONUMENTAL NEW waste stream falling upon the environment..

EVs are inevitable. They will replace fuel burners. The only variable is rate.

You insist on acting like the 20th century just began. Seemingly unlimited fossil fuels and the consequences of their waste not yet known.

You are intellectually obsolete.

Let me show you exactly how irrevelent you are and why you are the ONLY USMB on ignore.

Please answer the following question.. I've posted the answer at LEAST 10 times since you've been here.. READY??

What TYPE of EV have I said that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSE ?? And what FUEL does it run on?

You're irrelevent because after 10K posts or so -- you haven't LEARNED or LISTENED. All you do is spew. You have no EXCUSE for not knowing my position on EVs.. After all I know ALL of your one position that you state over and over and over again.

Bonus offer --- answer the questions correctly --- and I wont continue to IGNORE YOU...

 

[RollingThunder]

You're a true moron.. EVs are not part of the solution.. They represent about a potential LOAD INCREASE of about 33%. You are correct that solar and wind are merely PEAKER Sources of power --- not ALTERNATIVES.. You cannot even USE measurable amounts of wind on the grid without SOME storage unless you want to dump it into the ground when it spikes. CURRENTLY --- there's not enough to matter. But as Cali and Germany are discovering --- that limit to wind comes into play REAL QUICK. And it's literally gonna EASILY DOUBLE the cost of installed wind capacity.. All for a tech that HAS TO HAVE a 100% 24/7/365 REAL generator to carry the demand reliably..

In fact in Japan --- where they LISTEN TO ENGINEERS AND NOT ECO-FRAUDS --- they never ALLOWED ANY WIND on their grid without a minimal amount of battery storage on site. You are promoting a hyped up fraud that will create a MONUMENTAL NEW waste stream falling upon the environment..

EVs are inevitable. They will replace fuel burners. The only variable is rate.

You insist on acting like the 20th century just began. Seemingly unlimited fossil fuels and the consequences of their waste not yet known.

You are intellectually obsolete.

Let me show you exactly how irrevelent you are and why you are the ONLY USMB on ignore.

Please answer the following question.. I've posted the answer at LEAST 10 times since you've been here.. READY??

What TYPE of EV have I said that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSE ?? And what FUEL does it run on?

You're irrelevent because after 10K posts or so -- you haven't LEARNED or LISTENED. All you do is spew. You have no EXCUSE for not knowing my position on EVs.. After all I know ALL of your one position that you state over and over and over again.

Bonus offer --- answer the questions correctly --- and I wont continue to IGNORE YOU...

Your vastly inflated sense of self importance is very amusing, fecalhead, but in fact you're just just another ignorant bamboozled retard without a clue about what is actually happening. Nobody cares what you "have said" about EVs because it's obvious you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground in the first place.

Your fantasies and myths about intermittency and the, in your mind, 'eternal' need to keep gas fired power plants spinning to cover grid fluctuation are what is "intellectually obsolete", you clueless cretin.

Solution to Renewable Energy's Intermittency Problem: More Renewable Energy
Scientific American
Dec 12, 2012

The Intermittency of Wind and Solar: Is It Only Intermittently a Problem?


And that's not even considering the development and deployment of advanced energy storage systems, which are already being manufactured.

 

[flacaltenn]

EVs are inevitable. They will replace fuel burners. The only variable is rate.

You insist on acting like the 20th century just began. Seemingly unlimited fossil fuels and the consequences of their waste not yet known.

You are intellectually obsolete.

Let me show you exactly how irrevelent you are and why you are the ONLY USMB on ignore.

Please answer the following question.. I've posted the answer at LEAST 10 times since you've been here.. READY??

What TYPE of EV have I said that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSE ?? And what FUEL does it run on?

You're irrelevent because after 10K posts or so -- you haven't LEARNED or LISTENED. All you do is spew. You have no EXCUSE for not knowing my position on EVs.. After all I know ALL of your one position that you state over and over and over again.

Bonus offer --- answer the questions correctly --- and I wont continue to IGNORE YOU...

Your vastly inflated sense of self importance is very amusing, fecalhead, but in fact you're just just another ignorant bamboozled retard without a clue about what is actually happening. Nobody cares what you "have said" about EVs because it's obvious you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground in the first place.

Your fantasies and myths about intermittency and the, in your mind, 'eternal' need to keep gas fired power plants spinning to cover grid fluctuation are what is "intellectually obsolete", you clueless cretin.

Solution to Renewable Energy's Intermittency Problem: More Renewable Energy
Scientific American
Dec 12, 2012

The Intermittency of Wind and Solar: Is It Only Intermittently a Problem?


And that's not even considering the development and deployment of advanced energy storage systems, which are already being manufactured.

Obviously, you're not informed.. Want to see $500Mill of "advanced energy storage systems" looks like???????

All $500Mill of it.. (and that's made in China.. In the US, delivered and operating, you're looking at TWICE that amount)

And that's just enough to store the energy from 18 WindMills for about 4 hours or 2 hours at their RATED output.. Check out the thread I posted called "Renewables in Cali just got more Expensive".. You know --- the thread where NOT ONE of you defending this GIANT WASTE OF MONEY made a single comment.

Can YOU answer the question that asked PMZ?? What have I said about Electric Vehicles?
If you call me names for something --- you SHOULD BE ABLE to tell me the position I took on the topic? Wanna make it interesting?? How about if you can't answer that question, you end up the 2nd poster that I've ever put on ignore??