More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[PMZ]

Apparently there is a school of thought that says if you want fossil fuels bad enough they'll last forever.

I've never bought into that.

We have probably less then 100 years to replace everything that uses liquid fuels today with things that don't. During that time, the price of liquid fuels will grow from what it is now, to liquid gold.

All of today's cars, gas stations, pipelines, refineries, oil platforms, wells, transport trucks, etc, down and out.

People who think that that can be done at a leisurely pace in the time remaining just aren't realistic.

 

[skookerasbil]

Apparently there is a school of thought that says if you want fossil fuels bad enough they'll last forever.

I've never bought into that.

We have probably less then 100 years to replace everything that uses liquid fuels today with things that don't. During that time, the price of liquid fuels will grow from what it is now, to liquid gold.

All of today's cars, gas stations, pipelines, refineries, oil platforms, wells, transport trucks, etc, down and out.

People who think that that can be done at a leisurely pace in the time remaining just aren't realistic.

But anybody with half a brain knows that over the next 100 years, innovation in energy will carry the world into the 22nd century. In the meantime, only half wits think its a good idea to fubar whole economies trying to subsidize a transition to the gayness of solar and wind. And ps......it wont be happening s0n......as this thread has displayed in a manner that may be described as overwhelming to the level of sIcK

 

[PMZ]

Apparently there is a school of thought that says if you want fossil fuels bad enough they'll last forever.

I've never bought into that.

We have probably less then 100 years to replace everything that uses liquid fuels today with things that don't. During that time, the price of liquid fuels will grow from what it is now, to liquid gold.

All of today's cars, gas stations, pipelines, refineries, oil platforms, wells, transport trucks, etc, down and out.

People who think that that can be done at a leisurely pace in the time remaining just aren't realistic.

But anybody with half a brain knows that over the next 100 years, innovation in energy will carry the world into the 22nd century. In the meantime, only half wits think its a good idea to fubar whole economies trying to subsidize a transition to the gayness of solar and wind. And ps......it wont be happening s0n......as this thread has displayed in a manner that may be described as overwhelming to the level of sIcK

How long should we wait to start the inevitable? How much risk should we take? How many lives lost and trillions spent should we pour down the extreme weather recovery rathole while you clown around?

 

[skookerasbil]

Apparently there is a school of thought that says if you want fossil fuels bad enough they'll last forever.

I've never bought into that.

We have probably less then 100 years to replace everything that uses liquid fuels today with things that don't. During that time, the price of liquid fuels will grow from what it is now, to liquid gold.

All of today's cars, gas stations, pipelines, refineries, oil platforms, wells, transport trucks, etc, down and out.

People who think that that can be done at a leisurely pace in the time remaining just aren't realistic.

But anybody with half a brain knows that over the next 100 years, innovation in energy will carry the world into the 22nd century. In the meantime, only half wits think its a good idea to fubar whole economies trying to subsidize a transition to the gayness of solar and wind. And ps......it wont be happening s0n......as this thread has displayed in a manner that may be described as overwhelming to the level of sIcK

How long should we wait to start the inevitable? How much risk should we take? How many lives lost and trillions spent should we pour down the extreme weather recovery rathole while you clown around?

That's the whole point of this thread my friend. You might be right. But nobody knows for sure. Nobody. Accordingly, the majority is not going to be OK with digressing to energy/lifestyle circa 1850. Concrete events of biblical proportions would have to happen in a very short time span for the masses to embrace the hurt that would accompany going 100% green.

 

[PMZ]

But anybody with half a brain knows that over the next 100 years, innovation in energy will carry the world into the 22nd century. In the meantime, only half wits think its a good idea to fubar whole economies trying to subsidize a transition to the gayness of solar and wind. And ps......it wont be happening s0n......as this thread has displayed in a manner that may be described as overwhelming to the level of sIcK

How long should we wait to start the inevitable? How much risk should we take? How many lives lost and trillions spent should we pour down the extreme weather recovery rathole while you clown around?

That's the whole point of this thread my friend. You might be right. But nobody knows for sure. Nobody. Accordingly, the majority is not going to be OK with digressing to energy/lifestyle circa 1850. Concrete events of biblical proportions would have to happen in a very short time span for the masses to embrace the hurt that would accompany going 100% green.

You're wrong. Lots going on. And, no thanks to you, the largest project mankind has ever taken on will be seen as progress. Be seamless. Save money.

But, carry on. You're entertaining. Responsible people will do the heavy lifting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ScienceRocks]

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

-No need to pulling shit out of ground,
-No need to truck it in, build pipelines or rail-outs

=Just power from solar, hydro, wind and wave to grid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

-No need to the chain of pulling shit out of ground,
-No need to truck it in, build pipelines or rail-outs

=Just power from solar, hydro, wind and wave to grid.

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

Two great reasons come to mind.

Less reliable.

More expensive.

I can see why liberals like it so much.

 

[PMZ]

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

-No need to the chain of pulling shit out of ground,
-No need to truck it in, build pipelines or rail-outs

=Just power from solar, hydro, wind and wave to grid.

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

Two great reasons come to mind.

Less reliable.

More expensive.

I can see why liberals like it so much.

What is the evidence of more expensive when you factor in potential savings for the avoidance of AGW extreme weather costs?

 

[ScienceRocks]

And you don't think that fossil fuels aren't given subsidies???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

-No need to the chain of pulling shit out of ground,
-No need to truck it in, build pipelines or rail-outs

=Just power from solar, hydro, wind and wave to grid.

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

Two great reasons come to mind.

Less reliable.

More expensive.

I can see why liberals like it so much.

What is the evidence of more expensive when you factor in potential savings for the avoidance of AGW extreme weather costs?

Let's see, spend real money now to save imaginary money in the future?

And all it takes is less reliable, more expensive energy now? Great!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you don't think that fossil fuels aren't given subsidies???

Feel free to show me subsidies fossil fuels receive.

 

[flacaltenn]

And you don't think that fossil fuels aren't given subsidies???

Feel free to show me subsidies fossil fuels receive.

And for Gods sakes Matthew.. Find one that DOESN'T count the National Hiway system and its maintenance as an old subsidy. And one that doesn't count Govt aid for low income fuel supplements as a handout to big oil...

 

[skookerasbil]

How long should we wait to start the inevitable? How much risk should we take? How many lives lost and trillions spent should we pour down the extreme weather recovery rathole while you clown around?

That's the whole point of this thread my friend. You might be right. But nobody knows for sure. Nobody. Accordingly, the majority is not going to be OK with digressing to energy/lifestyle circa 1850. Concrete events of biblical proportions would have to happen in a very short time span for the masses to embrace the hurt that would accompany going 100% green.

You're wrong. Lots going on. And, no thanks to you, the largest project mankind has ever taken on will be seen as progress. Be seamless. Save money.

But, carry on. You're entertaining. Responsible people will do the heavy lifting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

But all the factual evidence is with me and my pals in the Domination Matrix. As Ive pointed out about 4,000 times on this thread......its all about "costs". To the AGW climate crusader, costs don't matter. But the rest of the planet cares......which is exactly why every single energy projection decades from now shows fossil fuel domination. Ive posted many links.......Polar post links.......Todd posts links........FlaCallTenn posts links..........Frank posts links..........Daveman posts links.........West posts up links..........BriPat posts up links..........and the AGW climate crusaders throw up their opinion narrative. Losing.



This thread is 120 pages of domination. 22,000 views



winning

 

[skookerasbil]

PS.......this thread will prevail for a long, long time to come......now nearing 2,000 posts......... while the nutter-ass bomb thrower threads will die off and go away!!

The Domination Matrix will make sure that this thread is the perpetual thread.......always near the top of the page........to educate the curious about how fucking stoopid and fantasy driven the green agenda is.

 

[polarbear]

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

-No need to pulling shit out of ground,
-No need to truck it in, build pipelines or rail-outs

=Just power from solar, hydro, wind and wave to grid.

Why do you put hydro in there?
Every country that has suitable rivers is already doing that !
So let`s move on to wind and solar,
"Just power from solar,wind and wave to grid"
when are you or PMZ going to tell us how that could be done ?
How many more times does one have to explain it to you what it takes for a grid tied generator to crank out 60 Hertz on 3 phases in sync and at the same Voltage as the grid it is tied into ?
...and keep doing so while the grid demand suddenly spikes up.
If it ramps down that`s not a problem for wind and solar, it`s when a large load comes on line.
Have you any idea at all how much more power a single 20 hp 3 phase motor draws when you turn it on ?
How many spot welders do you think does it take run an electric Tesla car body assembly line.
Every time a spot welder makes contact it`s a huge inductive load spike and each welder does that every few seconds.
In a conventional power plant the control system compensates for these load spikes by ramping up the exciter coil voltage .
At the instance that happens that demands more torque from the turbine that drives the generator. In a hydro driven generator the torque is adjusted by modulating the "wicked gates".

and in steam powered turbines it`s done pretty well the same way.
In either case the wicket gate actuator mechanism must be fast enough to be able to respond

else the generator itself becomes a huge load on the grid if it`s rpm or it`s output voltage drop...then the grid drives it as if it were a huge 3 phase motor...and you get a catastrophic cascading failure that will have a domino effect on whatever else is trying to power up the grid.

Our power plants can handle that 24 hours/day and every day all year long because this turbine configuration has a very very wide operating envelope:

So, load demand changes like this aren`t a problem:

Because for each turbine you have a constant pressure to drive it, either with high pressure steam or with hydro the pen stock pressure..which you can also control:

So now it`s your turn
Tell me how you would do it to as you say

Just power from solar,( hydro), wind and wave to grid.

Just (???) how do you do that when you have no control over the wind speed and direction?

This it what it takes to do it, and even you should know it by now because I posted it now ~ 2 dozen times:

It takes another conventional turbine to tie a wind turbine to the grid.
There is no "just".
Do you guys think we do that just for the fun of it ?
Shit, what`s the matter with you guys?
You don`t even bother to read any of the "renewable energy" blogs that enviro-activist bloggers who have a technical understanding post on the internet:
WORLD OF PURE ENERGY: Energy Storage and Solar Power *

Types of demand response

However, just as solar output fluctuates, so does demand from power consumers – not only from day to day and from week to week, but within 24-hour cycles and smaller increments. Grid operators currently have multiple ways of meeting this demand – from turning on and off large coal, nuclear and natural gas plants, to increasing and decreasing rates of generation within plants, to releasing power stored in pumped hydroelectric units and using capacitors to meet instantaneous demand spikes. The type of response naturally varies according to the type of demand. The most difficult and expensive changes to meet are the rapid, short-term fluctuations in energy demand, known as “regulation” demand.
- See more at: WORLD OF PURE ENERGY: Energy Storage and Solar Power *
Until recently, the ramping up and down of natural gas units, some of which are only turned on when needed, has been used in many places to meet variations in demand. Many of these reserve units are kept operational, as “spinning reserves”. As a result, many nations, including the United States, have not invested heavily in energy storage.

There is no "just tie it to the grid"
You got 2 choices.
1.) do it cheaper with "spinning reserves"...that`s a coal, gas, hydro or nuclear power plant
or
2.) with a large number of pumped storage hydro electric power plants for each wind turbine power plant
That`s the way Germany has done it, it has "invested heavily in energy storage."
And the investment is so "heavy" but far from what it takes to be operational, that they now opted to go back to "spinning" reserves, which are coal fired power plants.

So one more time
Tell us how you can "just tie it to the grid" and until you do just shut up repeating over and over again that "we" should "just" do it.

I know, none of you idiots can !,
the only thing that you guys can do and always have done so far, is responding with the usual evasive troll crap remarks.

 

[PMZ]

PS.......this thread will prevail for a long, long time to come......now nearing 2,000 posts......... while the nutter-ass bomb thrower threads will die off and go away!!

The Domination Matrix will make sure that this thread is the perpetual thread.......always near the top of the page........to educate the curious about how fucking stoopid and fantasy driven the green agenda is.

You mean the Denial Matrix? Hiding from reality is just not much of an argument. Especially when hiding consists of closing your eyes. It's really not about what's written here but what's going on out there.

 

[PMZ]

There is so many reasons for renewable energy besides climate charge that we could argue for them without talking about climate charge.

-No need to pulling shit out of ground,
-No need to truck it in, build pipelines or rail-outs

=Just power from solar, hydro, wind and wave to grid.

Why do you put hydro in there?
Every country that has suitable rivers is already doing that !
So let`s move on to wind and solar,
"Just power from solar,wind and wave to grid"
when are you or PMZ going to tell us how that could be done ?
How many more times does one have to explain it to you what it takes for a grid tied generator to crank out 60 Hertz on 3 phases in sync and at the same Voltage as the grid it is tied into ?
...and keep doing so while the grid demand suddenly spikes up.
If it ramps down that`s not a problem for wind and solar, it`s when a large load comes on line.
Have you any idea at all how much more power a single 20 hp 3 phase motor draws when you turn it on ?
How many spot welders do you think does it take run an electric Tesla car body assembly line.
Every time a spot welder makes contact it`s a huge inductive load spike and each welder does that every few seconds.
In a conventional power plant the control system compensates for these load spikes by ramping up the exciter coil voltage .
At the instance that happens that demands more torque from the turbine that drives the generator. In a hydro driven generator the torque is adjusted by modulating the "wicked gates".

and in steam powered turbines it`s done pretty well the same way.
In either case the wicket gate actuator mechanism must be fast enough to be able to respond

else the generator itself becomes a huge load on the grid if it`s rpm or it`s output voltage drop...then the grid drives it as if it were a huge 3 phase motor...and you get a catastrophic cascading failure that will have a domino effect on whatever else is trying to power up the grid.

Our power plants can handle that 24 hours/day and every day all year long because this turbine configuration has a very very wide operating envelope:

So, load demand changes like this aren`t a problem:

Because for each turbine you have a constant pressure to drive it, either with high pressure steam or with hydro the pen stock pressure..which you can also control:

So now it`s your turn
Tell me how you would do it to as you say

Just power from solar,( hydro), wind and wave to grid.

Just (???) how do you do that when you have no control over the wind speed and direction?

This it what it takes to do it, and even you should know it by now because I posted it now ~ 2 dozen times:

It takes another conventional turbine to tie a wind turbine to the grid.
There is no "just".
Do you guys think we do that just for the fun of it ?
Shit, what`s the matter with you guys?
You don`t even bother to read any of the "renewable energy" blogs that enviro-activist bloggers who have a technical understanding post on the internet:
WORLD OF PURE ENERGY: Energy Storage and Solar Power *

Types of demand response

However, just as solar output fluctuates, so does demand from power consumers – not only from day to day and from week to week, but within 24-hour cycles and smaller increments. Grid operators currently have multiple ways of meeting this demand – from turning on and off large coal, nuclear and natural gas plants, to increasing and decreasing rates of generation within plants, to releasing power stored in pumped hydroelectric units and using capacitors to meet instantaneous demand spikes. The type of response naturally varies according to the type of demand. The most difficult and expensive changes to meet are the rapid, short-term fluctuations in energy demand, known as “regulation” demand.
- See more at: WORLD OF PURE ENERGY: Energy Storage and Solar Power *
Until recently, the ramping up and down of natural gas units, some of which are only turned on when needed, has been used in many places to meet variations in demand. Many of these reserve units are kept operational, as “spinning reserves”. As a result, many nations, including the United States, have not invested heavily in energy storage.

There is no "just tie it to the grid"
You got 2 choices.
1.) do it cheaper with "spinning reserves"...that`s a coal, gas, hydro or nuclear power plant
or
2.) with a large number of pumped storage hydro electric power plants for each wind turbine power plant
That`s the way Germany has done it, it has "invested heavily in energy storage."
And the investment is so "heavy" but far from what it takes to be operational, that they now opted to back to "spinning" reserves, which are coal fired power plants.

So one more time
Tell us how you can "just tie it to the grid" and until you do just shut up repeating over and over again that "we" should "just" do it.

I know, none of you idiots can !,
the only thing that you guys can do and always have done so far, is responding with the usual evasive troll crap remarks.

So you are saying what we have today doesn't work?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

PS.......this thread will prevail for a long, long time to come......now nearing 2,000 posts......... while the nutter-ass bomb thrower threads will die off and go away!!

The Domination Matrix will make sure that this thread is the perpetual thread.......always near the top of the page........to educate the curious about how fucking stoopid and fantasy driven the green agenda is.

You mean the Denial Matrix? Hiding from reality is just not much of an argument. Especially when hiding consists of closing your eyes. It's really not about what's written here but what's going on out there.

Especially when hiding consists of closing your eyes.

Like you're closing your eyes to the current investments in fossil fuels?

 

[PMZ]

PS.......this thread will prevail for a long, long time to come......now nearing 2,000 posts......... while the nutter-ass bomb thrower threads will die off and go away!!

The Domination Matrix will make sure that this thread is the perpetual thread.......always near the top of the page........to educate the curious about how fucking stoopid and fantasy driven the green agenda is.

You mean the Denial Matrix? Hiding from reality is just not much of an argument. Especially when hiding consists of closing your eyes. It's really not about what's written here but what's going on out there.

Especially when hiding consists of closing your eyes.

Like you're closing your eyes to the current investments in fossil fuels?

No, like you closing your eyes to the temporary nature of fossil fuels. And to science. And to engineering. And to progress.

 

[polarbear]

So you are saying what we have today doesn't work?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It`s quite apparent that you simply can`t understand the problem, even though I explained it often enough and in detail WHAT IT TAKES so that by now even a 12 year old child could understand it.
And you still don`t know what I am saying ?
"So you are saying what we have today doesn't work?"
Is that all you`ve got when somebody presses a moron like you for an answer how (an "engineer" like you) would "just do it".

Were you at least able to figure out how our calender is laid out, or do you also still have a problem with that one too ?

You know that it's winter, right?

In case you still don`t know...now it`s just 4 more days till winter starts