Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We've just had an exchange above where I used "50%-80% Renewables" (but a goal higher) with "NG supplemental."
So now you're just ****** Lying.
Shameless/delusional.
You really need debriefing/Therapy for your ability to Ignore even things said on this very page by me!
You are classically partisan blind and unable to carry on a coherent conversation if you LIE about what the other person/people said.
Resign.
`
There’s no “k” in fracture. It’s not fracking. It’s frac’ing.
www.kunc.org
I know this is near the bottom of the pyramid but your post IS INCOHERENT.Your evasions, equivocations, deflections, outright lies, and, well, in the end, personal attacks and anger at my pointed remarks about your epistemological bullshit has been noted
The folks that are running the climate scam as a way to make money and consolidate power are the ruling elites, or oligarchs. It turns out, I was wrong about taxation on private aircraft, but correct on yachts.
It’s time to ban private jets – or at least tax them to the ground | Akin Olla
Kylie Jenner’s 17-minute private jet ride is a reminder that private jets are morally obscene and terrible for the climate. The planet can no longer afford these indulgenceswww.theguardian.com
EU slaps fuel tax on private jets
Contrary to the European Commission’s original plan to exempt cargo planes and private jets from a fuel surcharge, the EU has for the first time in its history instated a €0.37 ($0.44) fuel tax on private jets, likely to be applied within two years. In mid-July, the Commission presented a review...rmx.news
As Politicians Threaten To Ban Cars In The Name Of Climate, Yachts Are Exempt From Ruling
A new European Union draft proposal concerning maritime emissions would exempt yachts at a time where politicians target automobiles.www.musclecarsandtrucks.com
I am dumbfounded that you do not know what I am talking about. It matters not how much communication is done on-line, I am talking about these wasteful confabs, which are just excuses to take luxury vacations, and consume copious amounts of luxurious resources for the jet-setting upper classes. GTFO here with your equivocations and playing stupid. And private planes being more fuel efficient than commercial jet airlines, are you serious with that? How dumb to do you think folks on this forum are? As dumb as you?
All it means, is the folks mouthing this garbage also KNOW this AGW propaganda is nothing but that, don't believe a word of it, otherwise, that land would lose value, and it would be a bad investment.Tell me how you are so ignorant that you would imagine it isn't a consideration. Oh, no wait, never mind, hypocrisy, deflection, and attacking your ideological opponents, rather than directly addressing the argument, seems to be all you have in the way of argument.
IOW? No answers, none.
Last time I gave proof that yes, crypto miners are in this group, but they are not alone, you became triggered. Crypto miners are on the small side. They are, indeed growing, I won't argue with you there. OTHO, if the global ruling classes were really concerned with this problem, they would not be making electric smart driving cars, which drive themselves, you have no idea how much energy and computing power that takes, complete smart cities? Forget about it. No, the folks pushing AGW no how much of a scam that bullshit is, otherwise, they would not be pushing 5G everything. Last time I posted complete, detailed articles about all that bullshit, you got triggered then, and promised me you would ignore me, what the hell happened Frances? Why do you sometimes decide to challenge someone who is clearly your intellectual superior?
It only brings you mental anguish to have to deal with cognitive dissonance, and everyone can see, you deal with it badly. You then resort, to nothing but name calling.
I don't think, I KNOW. I have proved this before. The fact that you are too stupid to even know who is running the world in the 21st century? That is the most shameful of all. You are almost too ignorant to have a conversation with.
View attachment 706226
The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III]
Wrong Kind of Green Nov 28, 2020 Foundations, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Social Engineering, United Nations, Whiteness & Aversive Racism
November 28, 2020
By Cory Morningstar
Part three. This is the final segment of a three-part investigative series. [Part 1] [Part 2]
The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III] - Wrong Kind of Green
"Social license is being harvested to reset the capitalist system – under the guise of a climate emergency and saving the planet. This we know: the planet will not be saved by those that have destroyed it."www.wrongkindofgreen.org
That fact that I bring cold hold reality, and why the global oligarchs are so desperate to get Russia and China, and ever other oligarch, into their "New World Order," controlling everyone's use of energy, making energy the new global currency, turning that into credits? That scares the shit out of you. I know precisely why the folks in control want to track and trace every bit every energy produced and consumed, and want to make energy the currency of the twenty first century, for every nation, for every corporation, school, business, government and person.
And it has not a damn bit to do with climate. It has every thing to do with control.
So yeah, you best keep me on ignore, because?
You didn't even Answer/quote my number 223 you FRAUD.You're losing to logic/reason and engineering/numbers. You PROJECT that wind/solar can power and EXPAND current grid demands. And that because of the cost curve on the PV panels or bladed turbines -- that's it's CHEAPER and JUST as effective as the CURRENT grid generators.
It's logic/reason & engineering/numbers. And it's simple actually.
Let's just leave wind behind since its' the sketchier more costly "supplement" and do the math to turn SOLAR from a daytime peaking supplement into a TRUE alternative. This shouldn't stress your brain or your honesty. LOL...
For a blend of lattitudes and seasonal variations experienced ALL over the lower 48 states -- I'll generously give solar 8 hours per day near PEAK rated performance. That leaves 16 hours a day that have to be covered by other means. So -- let's STORE IT. In HUMONGEOUS battery farms hereto never contemplated by man. Man currently is stretching the bounds of financing/storing just FOUR a day for ONE medium sized community.
To STORE IT -- you need the RATED output of field during the day -- PLUS -- TWICE as many Mwatt - Hrs to CHARGE the battery storage. Means you need TWO TIMES MORE solar panels to charge the batteries during the day. THAT -- Adds DOUBLE the cost of the land/facilities/PV panels.
THEN --- you'll need the 12 hours of storage battery farm. Since the MW-HR cost ratio between the land/facilities/PV panels and the battery storage is somewhat immune to the POWER rating of the total system -- From the ACTUAL data on grid scale battery facilities costs -- It's about 2 to 4 TIMES the cost of your "naked" solar farm. So being GENEROUS AGAIN -- I'll quip to 2 times the cost of your original 8 hour a day solar facility. And since the MW-Hrs are TWICE as much IN STORAGE as being used during the day -- THAT -- QUADRUPLES the cost of your naked daytime only solar generator.
Now for the HARD part --- What is (Doubles + Quadruples) -- boys and girls and other genders? Or 2 + 4 == ???? That's RIGHT Toddster (LOL).
To MAKE A DAYTIME ONLY SUPPLEMENTAL SOLAR GENERATION FIELD INTO A REAL ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCE USING STORAGE is AT LEAST SIX TIMES the cost of the original supplemental daytime peaking -- naked without storage -- solar installation.
And you wonder why NO ONE is interested in "how cheap the panels are"??? It's because they've done the math and the engineering and applied logic/reason and it's a waste of THEIR time to TELL THEM "how cheap solar is"...
Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power
Peter R. Orszag
Bloomberg
September 22, 2020
Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As the harm from climate change becomes increasingly manifest, there is some good news: The estimated cost of reducing carbon emissions is falling rapidly. One dramatic example is an analysis by Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University showing that it would cost only $6...ca.finance.yahoo.com
"...Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University showing that it would cost only $6 billion a year for the U.S. to move to carbon-free electricity generation by 2050.Even if the precise numbers are off, Heal is right to emphasize that the transition to cleaner energy is much less costly today than it used to be. Three forces are changing the math.First, renewable power costs are dropping so fast, both utility-scale solar and onshore wind power have become cheaper than natural gas or coal power, as Lazard’s levelized-cost-of-energy estimates from 2019 show. As I wrote when these numbers came out, multiple forces have driven costs down, including ongoing improvements in technology and lower capital costs. (In November, Lazard will have updated estimates of the cost of various energy technologies.)Second, the cost of storing renewable energy is also falling. The challenge with wind and solar energy is that they are intermittent, so they require either supplemental conventional power, such as combined-cycle natural gas, or enough storage to smooth the variation relative to demand. As storage becomes more affordable than supplementation, the share of energy production based solely on renewable power can expand......Third, and crucially, many power plants are nearing the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced one way or another. That means the cost of building new facilities is a given, and shouldn’t be counted as a cost of the transition to lower-carbon electricity. ...[......]How much of the cost is kept down by Government subsidies though?
`
I already made the thread redundant and obsolete.So No Topical Content at all.
No AGW debate, No Renewable debate, just your Blockbuster Quadruple-Spaced BS Picture show post now gone and always lunatical and meant to Bury em with BS.
PS: I don't have a sock. There is no one like me. Crick humors idiots like you, I destroy them.
`
corbettreport.substack.com
www.technologyreview.com
pubs.rsc.org
I'd bet you a dollar to a donut that the rule about adding the k for -ing suffixes predates the development of the process by at least a good hundred years. But, yeah, I'm sure Merriam Webster is taking direction from the liberal elites that actually control the planet. Right?View attachment 706236
What’s In A Word: Is It Fracking or Frac’ing?
While the media, the public and now the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary all spell it “fracking,” many in the oil and gas industry don’t.“I would…
It doesn't matter, that isn't the point.I'd bet you a dollar to a donut that the rule about adding the k for -ing suffixes predates the development of the process by at least a good hundred years. But, yeah, I'm sure Merriam Webster is taking direction from the liberal elites that actually control the planet. Right?
I hate to point this out to you Mr Beale, but it was AGW-Denier DING who first brought up the spelling of "fracking" and has reposted about it on several occasions.It doesn't matter, that isn't the point.
That point is, anyone that argues that someone is spelling the process wrong? Doesn't really know shit about it, and isn't someone that is really associated with the industry. IOW? ding is right, and knows more about it than you, and that chaps your ass.
The fact that you are now making excuses, and equivocating, makes you look even more pathetic.
And what does he say the correct spelling is?I hate to point this out to you Mr Beale, but it was AGW-Denier DING who first brought up the spelling of "fracking" and has reposted about it on several occasions.
Read the thread lazybones. Post #218 would be a good place to start.And what does he say the correct spelling is?
As I've pointed out a couple times recently to Toddsterpatriot, the fact that you (I assume) assign no value to an energy technology's capability to generate power without producing GHGs means there will always be a large difference between you and those who do value such things when conducting cost/benefit analyses for these alternative technologies.
electrek.co
Two-thirds of new renewables were cheaper than coal in 2021 – IRENA
(GW) – nearly two-thirds – of new renewable power added was cheaper than the cheapest coal-fired power plants in G20 countries, according to a new report released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
The G20, or Group of Twenty, is an intergovernmental forum comprising 19 countries and the European Union.
IRENA’s report, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021, states that the cost of electricity from onshore wind fell by 15%, offshore wind by 13%, and solar by 13% compared to 2020.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine drove up coal and natural gas prices, and high gas prices in Europe mean gas will become increasingly uneconomical.
[......]
Two-thirds of new renewables were cheaper than coal in 2021 – IRENA
In 2021, 163 gigawatts of new renewable power added in G20 countries was cheaper than the cheapest coal-fired power plants.
Pretty darn good in many countries of Europe which are Gray all winter.
`
www.icaew.com
Renewable power frees economies from volatile fossil fuel prices and imports, curbs energy costs, and enhances market resilience
Obviously.
View attachment 706603
Chart of the week: energy prices
Our chart this week is about domestic energy prices and the Ofgem energy price cap rises expected in April and October 2022.
The problem with the hydrogen idea, rather than complete reliance on EV vehicles, is it still leaves freedom and liberty in the hands of the consumer.Oh hell no. I've given MANY EXAMPLES where wind/solar COULD play a BIG ROLE in a future energy generation. You just didn't listen. I KNOW you've heard it.
For instance -- Moving hydrogen into a future "zero emissions" economy would be a great move. It's prohibitively expensive to "crack it" out of H20 -- but the fuel cells to USE IT are very advanced and possible for transport sector power and Grid back-up. INSTEAD of Battery Armageddon.
BEST PART of this concept is - it would be used OFF GRID to produce hydrogen from water or hydrocarbons. And it DOES NOT MATTER that wind/solar are not schedulable or reliable for hydrogen production -- It's only the AVERAGE power available that matters -- because stored HYDROGEN FUEL is the STORAGE mechanism.
I'm not discounting uses for your sketchy "alternatives" that are only supplements to the grid, I'm LOOKING for all the places where they BENEFIT THE MOST.
That's the difference between AOC/Sanders and me. It should be frightening enough to you to realize that CONGRESS is designing our next gen energy system -- but leftists have no sense of self-preservation and worship ANYTHING that's pitched right to them.
I'm AWARE. I have no idea what the hell we are arguing about, I just wanted you to restate it, because I have no idea WHY the hell you brought him up. Even he told you that you were wrong, and then you bring his name up, to reinforce the fact, that the link I posted agrees with what he already told you?Read the thread lazybones. Post #218 would be a good place to start.
Much like every time you address all of my posts.So No Topical Content at all.
