Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes.

Wow.

Not sure what's the best adjective to describe you.......

Ignorant.

Uneducated.

What's the opposite of well read?

 

[Crick]

Yes.

And the reduction claim is based on burning methane vice coal and oil?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the reduction claim is based on burning methane vice coal and oil?

Well fucking duh!

Why do you think we burn so much less coal?

 

[Crick]

Wow.

Not sure what's the best adjective to describe you.......

Ignorant.

Uneducated.

What's the opposite of well read?

I think it almost funny to see you sticking up for your fellow denier posters. I've just never been that interested in fracking. It produces gobs of cheap methane, pollutes water tables like mad and in some situations can actually cause temblors. I think that's enough to tell where I stand on the process. I'm not in favor of anything that increases the production of fossil fuels. And since methane is an extremely potent GHG and the primary source of the increasing levels of methane in our atmosphere is leakage, increased production and use of it is actually worse than using coal and oil.

So what was the basic knowledge you think I missed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think it almost funny to see you sticking up for your fellow denier posters. I've just never been that interested in fracking. It produces gobs of cheap methane, pollutes water tables like mad and in some situations can actually cause temblors. I think that's enough to tell where I stand on the process. I'm not in favor of anything that increases the production of fossil fuels. And since methane is an extremely potent GHG and the primary source of the increasing levels of methane in our atmosphere is leakage, increased production and use of it is actually worse than using coal and oil.

So what was the basic knowledge you think I missed?

I think it almost funny to see you sticking up for your fellow denier posters.

When they're smacking you green goobers around, how could I not cheer?

I've just never been that interested in fracking. It produces gobs of cheap methane,

Which allows us to stop burning coal which allows us to decouple economic growth from emissions.

pollutes water tables like mad

Link?

I think that's enough to tell where I stand on the process.

Yes, your ignorance is now even more obvious.

I'm not in favor of anything that increases the production of fossil fuels.

More energy, less CO2. You should be all in.

So what was the basic knowledge you think I missed?

More methane = less coal.
More methane = less CO2.

 

[abu afak]

So what was the basic knowledge you think I missed?
More methane = less coal.
More methane = less CO2.

But I've said it many times.
Expressing a 50-80% renewable and the rest NG.
Including in a thread specifically wanting talk about that Mix and what vas possible.

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky. We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021). How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon. I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in...

www.usmessageboard.com

Few takers.

abu afak: ""50-80% looks very possible to me.​

ToddtserParrot: ""Only if we have 50% to 80% Nuclear.""​

And
As I said to Flacalteen 8/17/22

A Day Ending in Y So Another Environmental Doomsday Prediction

FERC’s latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through June 30, 2021) reveals that renewable energy sources accounted for 91.6% – or 10,940 megawatts (MW) – of the 11,940 MW of new capacity added during the first six months of the year.Wind led the capacity additions with...

www.usmessageboard.com

ME""....Some say '100%' is possible.
I Don't see it how but at current Power Gen rates we are and will be making Huge inroads.
I can see the above 60%-80% with NG back up.
(I own NG stocks and mostly NG-MLPs. As we say on Wall Street, 'I only get paid for being right.').""

NG burns cleaner.. except when it doesn't burn/leaks like hell.
And it's 30-80x more powerful as a GHG when it doesn't burn.

We are all still rooting for you to post a paragraph or even break the 15 word Barrier Troll Vag.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But I've said it many times.
Expressing a 50-80% renewable and the rest NG.
Including in a thread specifically wanting talk about that Mix and what vas possible.

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky. We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021). How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon. I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in...

www.usmessageboard.com

Few takers.

abu afak: ""50-80% looks very possible to me.​

ToddtserParrot: ""Only if we have 50% to 80% Nuclear.""​

And
As I said to Flacalteen 8/17/22

A Day Ending in Y So Another Environmental Doomsday Prediction

FERC’s latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through June 30, 2021) reveals that renewable energy sources accounted for 91.6% – or 10,940 megawatts (MW) – of the 11,940 MW of new capacity added during the first six months of the year.Wind led the capacity additions with...

www.usmessageboard.com

ME"....Some say '100%' is possible.
I Don't see it how but at current Power Gen rates we are and will be making Huge inroads.
I can see the above 60%-80% with NG back up.
(I own NG stocks and mostly NG-MLPs. As we say on Wall Street, 'I only get paid for being right.').."

NG burns cleaner.. except when it doesn't burn/leaks like hell.
And it's 30-80x more powerful as a GHG when it doesn't burn.

We are all still rooting for you to post a paragraph or even break the 15 word Barrier OCD Troll Vag.

`

Expressing a 50-80% renewable and the rest NG.

How much NG backup capacity will be needed with 50-80% renewable?

 

[abu afak]

Expressing a 50-80% renewable and the rest NG.

How much NG backup capacity will be needed with 50-80% renewable?

That's it?
11 words to my elaborated post showing I do understand the NG issue/back up.
Your usual Inadequate/Non-conversant POS Troll.
Pathetic Vag licker.
Perm Ignore would be justified, but I can't let maybe 10% of your stupid QUIPS by.

But keep posting/last-wording.
I'll just drop by once in a while and I'll leave you some Hemorrhoid creme for the damage I do.
I'm done with you now Vag-ster.

PS: My opponents oft have to post multiple times when they realize they lost/were inadequate.
See it alot.
Especially You, ding, jc456.. the 3 one-line/one-quip trolls.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's it?
11 words to my elaborated post.
Your usual Inadequate/Non-conversant POS Troll.
Pathetic Vag licker.
`

Yes, you stupid twat.

50-80%. Awesome!

But solar doesn't work at night and the wind can be undependable.

So how much NG backup do you need for when a cloud crosses in front of the sun or after the sun sets? Unless we're going to be 3rd world about it and just have power for part of the day?

Or don't tell me. Sandy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just a small sample of how foolish the propaganda and kool-aid you are drinking.
View attachment 703894

Cost Of The Green Energy Transition: Who You Gonna Believe, Some Research Assistants From Oxford Or Your Lyin' Eyes? — Manhattan Contrarian

Over in Europe, and particularly in those countries in the vanguard of the green energy transition, the enormous costs of this folly have begun to hit home. In the UK, average annual consumer energy bills were scheduled to rise as of October 1 to £3549/year, from only £1138/year just a year ago. (

www.manhattancontrarian.com

View attachment 703895

Also doesn't help transparency or instill confidence in cost estimates of TRUE COSTS of "supplemental" sources like Wind/Solar when states like Cali have essentially "CLASSIFIED" the contractuals and costs of new renewable projects so that public CAN NOT ACCESS THEM until YEARS after these facilities get built.

 

[flacaltenn]

All the calculations for solar include the fact they don't operate at night... OF COURSE!
Wind does blow at night.
Battery tech and the above two sources get better every year.
Solar has gotten 85% more efficient since 2010. It really doesn't need incentives any more except to offset the influence of Big Oil.
That's what has enabled the Green Revolution we are seeing.

Oil, as we see right now, is controlled by the worst possible countries. OPEC+Ru.
Thus a good part of our current inflation.
Solar, wind, battery, will never go to $150 a barrel. On the contrary, they will get more efficient yet. (somewhat like Moore's Law)

`

NO! These costs for solar and wind COMPLETELY IGNORE THE FACT that these "supplements" CANNOT PROVIDE consistent power to the grid. THere are MAJOR costs involve in that or even FOOLISHLY attempting to fix that with the Unicorn Fart method of creating a battery ARMAGGEDON of toxic waste and strip-mining the WORLD for the rare components.

WHY do you constantly dishonestly assert that these are NOT COSTS!!!!!

Solar has gotten 85% more efficient since 2010.

That's complete horseshit. The development curve for solar efficiency PEAKED about 20 years ago. Only the manufacturing volume has brought prices down. WE KNOW how to MAKE solar PV 15% more efficient or more -- but THANKFULLY, even radical know-nothings about tech will AVOID use the Gallium-Arsenide panels that sent on the Mars rovers -- because of the amount toxic Gallium and Arsenic that would need to mined.

 

[Crick]

NO! These costs for solar and wind COMPLETELY IGNORE THE FACT that these "supplements" CANNOT PROVIDE consistent power to the grid. THere are MAJOR costs involve in that or even FOOLISHLY attempting to fix that with the Unicorn Fart method of creating a battery ARMAGGEDON of toxic waste and strip-mining the WORLD for the rare components.

WHY do you constantly dishonestly assert that these are NOT COSTS!!!!!




That's complete horseshit. The development curve for solar efficiency PEAKED about 20 years ago. Only the manufacturing volume has brought prices down. WE KNOW how to MAKE solar PV 15% more efficient or more -- but THANKFULLY, even radical know-nothings about tech will AVOID use the Gallium-Arsenide panels that sent on the Mars rovers -- because of the amount toxic Gallium and Arsenic that would need to mined.

Where did he assert that they weren't costs? And where are the costs for providing power when fossil fuel plants fail?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's it?
11 words to my elaborated post showing I do understand the NG issue/back up.
Your usual Inadequate/Non-conversant POS Troll.
Pathetic Vag licker.
Perm Ignore would be justified, but I can't let maybe 10% of your stupid QUIPS by.

But keep posting/last-wording.
I'll just drop by once in a while and I'll leave you some Hemorrhoid creme for the damage I do.
I'm done with you now Vag-ster.

PS: My opponents oft have to post multiple times when they realize they lost/were inadequate.
See it alot.
Especially You, ding, jc456.. the 3 one-line/one-quip trolls.

Here's some more info you can ignore......

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

This UN report thinks wind power needs 0.9 GW of backup power for every GW of wind capacity.

I wonder how much backup they think solar needs?

Let's run the numbers for solar at 90% as well.

And when I say, "let's run the numbers", I mean, you're a stupid liberal, so I'll run them for you and you'll ignore them because they make your ideas look idiotic.

Expressing a 50-80% renewable and the rest NG.

Nat gas would be 20-50% to start.

90% back up for the 50%-80% renewable means another 45% to 72% NG.

92-95% nat gas with 45-72% only used some of the time. Building all that capacity

and only using it when solar and wind aren't working for you......that's gonna be expensive.

What sort of numbers did you come up with? Or did you like the 3rd world idea?

 

[abu afak]

NO! These costs for solar and wind COMPLETELY IGNORE THE FACT that these "supplements" CANNOT PROVIDE consistent power t.........
That's complete horseshit. The development curve for solar efficiency PEAKED about 20 years ago. Only the manufacturing volume has brought prices down. WE KNOW how to MAKE solar PV 15% more efficient or more -- but THANKFULLY, even radical know-nothings about tech will AVOID use the Gallium-Arsenide panels that sent on the Mars rovers -- because of the amount toxic Gallium and Arsenic that would need to mined.

So basically two points even tho you needed 3 post to make empty claims with No back-up/No links
Or perhaps you, like so many other brainwashed MAGAts here are trying the bury/Bludgeon technique of 'debate.(Toadster just needed/blurted 3 too)
And of course Solar is not the only renewable. It's sunny or blowing in many places every day, evening out the load. Lately Wind is taking the edge because farmers love making 5-10K per for one every 20 acres or so.

Of course, Big Business Pros are NOT spending hundreds of millions/billions on Solar/Wind every year without doing the math.
That alone is enough and you can add it to my many documented thread starts on it/them.

Second the efficiency/cost issue.

Solar Technology Got Cheaper and Better in the 2010s. Now What?

No other power-generation technology matched solar power's pace of cost reduction this past decade. The game will change again in the 2020s.

www.greentechmedia.com

""..Solar energy grew by leaps and bounds in the 2010s. According to Wood Mackenzie, global annual solar installations grew more than sixfold this past decade, from 16 gigawatts in 2010 to 105 gigawatts in 2019.​

​

In the meantime, multi-silicon solar module prices dropped from over $2 per watt to just over $0.20 per watt in Q3 2019. That 90% price reduction is one of the most critical factors driving the global expansion of solar.​

​

No other electricity generation technologies have been able to keep up with solar’s pace of cost reduction over this period."..."​

And that's all it takes when you know what you're talking about. (and have started many Linked threads on the issue already)
We were done before we started due to my many previous Sourced thread starts and posts on the topic .
This mostly rehash was for the slow and unread.

Have a good night Flacalteen.

Oh, and I didn't forget Climate guy!'
Do you still think it stopped warming in 2008?
Yippee-Ka-YO-Ka-Yay!

(watch him try 3 more with the same old empty pre-refuted claims)

 

[ding]

There don't seem to be a lot of brains inside your skull. Or perhaps English is not your native tongue. I challenge you to show me a published article on the subject that spells the term as you have suggested.
View attachment 704992

That was a textbook example of the dunning effect. Congratulations.

 

[ding]

Could you just go ahead and tell us, in your opinion, how much fracking reduced US greenhouse gas emissions.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

 

[ding]

You're a trolling Jerk but one would think you have seen enough english words to know..
You haven't seen any? Or you are so used to TROLLING for Trolling sake..

"""When adding ING What is the rule?​

​

To keep the /k/ sound intact, a “k” Must be added before the -ing ending.​

​

Rule 3: Add a K ​

1. • picnic: There are many people picnicking in the park.
   • traffic: A special unit was set up to combat the trafficking of drugs.
   • panic: Calm down! Panicking won't help."""

- - - - - - -

English/Language Arts Help: Add -ING to Verbs by Dropping IE or Adding a K

Learn how to spell the -ing form of verbs correctly. This series details the rules and explains why they exist. We look at dropping -ie, as in die and tie. We also take a look at words like picnic, which require adding a -k before the -ing.

www.brighthubeducation.com

`

I worked in the industry for 37 years. It’s not spelled fracking. There is no “k” in fracture.

 

[Crick]

I worked in the industry for 37 years. It’s not spelled fracking. There is no “k” in fracture.

Then you should have no problem whatsoever showing us some published examples of your spelling.

And when I asked Google for the definition of "frac'ing" I got:

Did you mean: definition of fracking

And when I insisted that I meant "frac'ing" it gave me this:

Search Results​

Featured snippet from the web​

Fracking is the injection of a fluid at high pressure into an underground rock formation to open fissures and allow trapped gas or crude oil to flow through a pipe to a wellhead at the surface. This technique is used in natural gas and petroleum production.
https://www.britannica.com/technolo...tion of,natural gas and petroleum production.

fracking | Definition, Environmental Concerns, & Facts​

https://www.britannica.com/technolo...tion of,natural gas and petroleum production.
Which would all seem to indicate that among the many things I'm sure you did for that 37 years in the fracking industry, spelling bees weren't one of them.

 

[ding]

Then you should have no problem whatsoever showing us some published examples of your spelling.

And when I asked Google for the definition of "frac'ing" I got:

Did you mean: definition of fracking

And when I insisted that I meant "frac'ing" it gave me this:

Search Results​

Featured snippet from the web​

View attachment 705331

Fracking is the injection of a fluid at high pressure into an underground rock formation to open fissures and allow trapped gas or crude oil to flow through a pipe to a wellhead at the surface. This technique is used in natural gas and petroleum production.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/fracking#:~:text=Fracking is the injection of,natural gas and petroleum production.

fracking | Definition, Environmental Concerns, & Facts​

https://www.britannica.com/technology/fracking#:~:text=Fracking is the injection of,natural gas and petroleum production.
Which would all seem to indicate that among the many things I'm sure you did for that 37 years in the fracking industry, spelling bees weren't one of them.

I can’t control others thinking there is a “k” in fracture stimulation. I don’t have that much power.

 

[Crick]

What are the ing spelling rules?​

The spelling rules that govern the formation of continuous verbs and gerunds may be confusing. The spelling changes according to verb endings and the number of syllables. The following sections present nine spelling rules to master the spelling of ing forms.

https://www.myenglishpages.com/english/grammar-lesson-what-are-ing-spelling-rules.php#:~:text=9.,a%20%2Dk%20%2B%20%2-ing.

Note the lower right hand corner. This is the second different English language reference that I know you've been shown that says frac becomes fracking. The person that doesn't know how to spell the term would be YOU.