Correct but it's a lot longer than most people think it is.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The reality of renewable energy
- Thread starter Blues Man
- Start date
It's already a significant provider of electricity in the Pacific NW and will most likely remain a a significant provider of electricity in the Pacific NW for a very long time.OK I'll give you that one but Hydro is not going to be a significant provider of electricity in the future. We are not building dams because they are just too expensive and are really really bad for the environmentHow much power does Oregon buy from out of state ?I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.Watch the documentaryI don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claimsI've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.
The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.
but here
Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels
Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.
Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous
Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.climatechangedispatch.com
I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.
I live in Oregon ... 100% of the electric power up North comes from renewables ... if fact, it is illegal to burn coal to produce electricity within the State ... Governor Kate Brown shut down every last coal-fired power plant in the entire state ... woot ... where I live it's only 80% renewables ... the rest is from natural gas ...
ETA: I don't agree with the assumption we're experiencing a mass extinction event ... yes, we're losing individual species, but these niches are quickly re-filled ... for example: we've eliminated the wolf from The West, only to see coyote populations explode and cause the same (if not more) damage to livestock operations ... during the Permian Event, over 70% of all organisms died off, leaving nothing to replace them ... big difference there ...
Pound for pound, mankind and his domesticates comprise 90% of all mammals in the world ... although that number is dwarfed by the tonnage of ants ... mammals are a small part of the ecosystem ... our effects on the microbial world are trivial ...
And there is no way the entire state is powered by 100% renewable electricity.
How much power does Oregon buy from out of state ?
And there is no way the entire state is powered by 100% renewable electricity.
Bonneville Power Administration ... buck-o ... read them and weep ... we export energy to California by the cubic furlong ...
Impossible.
What you're saying is in Ore gen that doesn't even have 200 sunny days a year gets 100% of its power from wind and solar
You're telling me that at night 100% of all power in Oregon is wind generated?
You're full of it.
You misunderstand him since he is talking about HYDRO power generation which is classified as a renewable, wind and power is a small part of the renewable package for Washington and Oregon.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
That is true. Modern reactor designs are meltdown proof and small reactors can be put just about anywhere.I am a big proponent of LFTR reactors.Well, there is one power source that releases very little carbon at all and can produce power efficiently, quietly, and more cleanly than just about any other. But that's been so demonized for so long they're scared to use it.You didn't watch the documentary did you?Nonetheless, under the agreed plan, renewable infrastructure investment, particularly in energy transmission and grid systems, will receive a US$73 billion boost, which paves the way for greater renewable energy capacity moving forward.
Planet of the Humans | By Jeff Gibbs, Executive Producer Michael Moore
This eco-documentary takes a harsh look at how the environmental movement has lost the battle through well-meaning but disastrous choices.planetofthehumans.com
The plan will upgrade US “power infrastructure, including by building thousands of miles of new, resilient transmission lines to facilitate the expansion of renewable energy, including through a new Grid Authority,” said a White House statement.
In total, it calls for US$973 billion in spending over the next five years, with US$1.2 trillion proposed over the next eight, factoring in the federal government’s current baseline.
The infrastructure plan agreed yesterday “is the single largest investment in clean energy transmission in American history”, added the White House statement.
The framework will be financed through a combination of taxes, corporate user fees and “the macroeconomic impact of infrastructure investment”.
Biden strikes bipartisan infrastructure deal, but compromises made on clean energy
US president Joe Biden has reached a bipartisan agreement with democrat and republican senators on a US$1.2 trillion infrastructure plan.www.pv-tech.org
The entire clean energy movement is a farce.
Solar panels are produced by burning coal and degenerate over time
Windmills are a carbon nightmare and don't even last 20 years
Biomass is nothing but wood and now forests are being clear cut to feed furnaces
Large solar farms are destroying desert ecosystems and are nothing but fossil fuel plants at their heart.
In fact even though we have been told that so called renewable power has been installed we have not seen a reduction in fossil fuel based power generation but quite the opposite.
The entire argument that we can simply replace all fossil fuel generated power with "green" "clean" and "renewable " power and see no change in our way of life is a lie.
We already have enough nuclear waste in storage to power this country and ramp up production to meet higher demands for at least a century
That is true. Modern reactor designs are meltdown proof and small reactors can be put just about anywhere.
What do you mean by "modern"? ... liquid sodium breeder reactors were one of the first to be designed, when we thought uranium was rare ... such reactors were more expensive to build back in the 1950's so we pursued other (faulty) designs ... profit before people ...
Thorium appears to be meltdown proof ... and leaks would be substantially less poisonous ... accidents would be easy to clean up ... but that fails to take into consideration man's ill-will towards each other ... are we sure thorium can't be weaponized? ...
Who pays? ... if this wasn't so risky, Exxon would already be building them ... we'll need a $5/gal gasoline tax ... and bigger government to manage the program ... all because stupid fucks won't ditch their A/C ...
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Correct but it's a lot longer than most people think it is.Climate change is a hoax ... running out of fossil fuels is not
I disagree ... just look at how fast the Alarmists are blowing through the stuff ... they certainly think our fossil fuel supply will last a very long time ...
We may have already exhausted our supply of cheap fossil fuel ... and we're currently burning our not-so-cheap fossil fuel ... how long until we have to start burning our hey-this-shit's-getting-expensive fossil fuels? ...
So the better question is when will renewables become more economical than burning fossil fuels ... and what should a good Capitalist do when that day comes ...
Hey now.all because stupid fucks won't ditch their A/C ...
I'm an engineer. I always factor in economics. So economics were factored into my statement. Everything is constrained by economics. Some more than others.Correct but it's a lot longer than most people think it is.Climate change is a hoax ... running out of fossil fuels is not
I disagree ... just look at how fast the Alarmists are blowing through the stuff ... they certainly think our fossil fuel supply will last a very long time ...
We may have already exhausted our supply of cheap fossil fuel ... and we're currently burning our not-so-cheap fossil fuel ... how long until we have to start burning our hey-this-shit's-getting-expensive fossil fuels? ...
So the better question is when will renewables become more economical than burning fossil fuels ... and what should a good Capitalist do when that day comes ...
Unconventional OIL resources are massive and are more so constrained by economics than conventional reservoirs.
Conventional natural gas resources are massive and less constrained by economics than unconventional reservoirs.
Unconventional natural gas resources are massive and more so constrained by economics than conventional natural gas reservoirs.
Coal resources are just plain massive.
Bottom line... the ECONOMIC life of fossil fuels is longer than most people imagine.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Please don't get me started on the shortsightedness of widespread use of solar panels in the middle of an ice age. Please, please, please, please.it makes economic sense to install solar farms along all 2,000 miles (or so) of those transmission lines .
Energy is conserved ... solar panels won't destroy it ... if anything, solar panels would increase surface temperatures ... retaining that energy for longer periods of time ... if you'll notice, solar panels look black to the naked eye ... desert sands are tanish to white ... think rural Nevada ...
I disagree. First of all other energy sources that are used to generate electricity do not capture solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet. So from a budget standpoint that supposed energy conservation is already added to the system without reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet. Secondly, whatever energy you might think is being conserved through the use of electricity will not heat the surface of the planet. And lastly, much of the energy that you believe is conserved is being conserved by doing mechanical work (kinetic or potential) and will not heat the surface of the earth.Please don't get me started on the shortsightedness of widespread use of solar panels in the middle of an ice age. Please, please, please, please.it makes economic sense to install solar farms along all 2,000 miles (or so) of those transmission lines .
Energy is conserved ... solar panels won't destroy it ... if anything, solar panels would increase surface temperatures ... retaining that energy for longer periods of time ... if you'll notice, solar panels look black to the naked eye ... desert sands are tanish to white ... think rural Nevada ...
Given the hysteria over the use of fossil fuels and climate, one would think that my claim would not be dismissed off hand. Especially since we are in the middle of an ice age with the planet so uniquely configured for glacial cycles and us being only 120 ppm from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation.
That's not what they have observed. They have observed a regional cooling effect which makes perfect sense as any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the earth.solar panels would increase surface temperatures
ReinyDays
Gold Member
I'm an engineer. I always factor in economics. So economics were factored into my statement. Everything is constrained by economics. Some more than others.Correct but it's a lot longer than most people think it is.Climate change is a hoax ... running out of fossil fuels is not
I disagree ... just look at how fast the Alarmists are blowing through the stuff ... they certainly think our fossil fuel supply will last a very long time ...
We may have already exhausted our supply of cheap fossil fuel ... and we're currently burning our not-so-cheap fossil fuel ... how long until we have to start burning our hey-this-shit's-getting-expensive fossil fuels? ...
So the better question is when will renewables become more economical than burning fossil fuels ... and what should a good Capitalist do when that day comes ...
Unconventional OIL resources are massive and are more so constrained by economics than conventional reservoirs.
Conventional natural gas resources are massive and less constrained by economics than unconventional reservoirs.
Unconventional natural gas resources are massive and more so constrained by economics than conventional natural gas reservoirs.
Coal resources are just plain massive.
Bottom line... the ECONOMIC life of fossil fuels is longer than most people imagine.
Bottom line... the ECONOMIC life of fossil fuels is longer than most people imagine.
Texas has oil, Oregon doesn't ... that changes the economies ... Oregon has water, Texas doesn't ... why fault me for using hydro? ... why fault desert dwellers their solar panels? ...
Yes ... I'm aware of how God-awful much natural gas is burned off at the well head ... we can see it from space ... pipe that up, use it in technologically advanced power stations ... but most people can imagine the life-span of a small star at a trillion years ... some folks might think that's a long time ... not sure fossil fuels will last that long to be honest ...
Conservation saves money ... do we need any other reason to curtail fossil fuel use? ...
ReinyDays
Gold Member
I disagree. First of all other energy sources that are used to generate electricity do not capture solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet. So from a budget standpoint that supposed energy conservation is already added to the system without reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet. Secondly, whatever energy you might think is being conserved through the use of electricity will not heat the surface of the planet. And lastly, much of the energy that you believe is conserved is being conserved by doing mechanical work (kinetic or potential) and will not heat the surface of the earth.Please don't get me started on the shortsightedness of widespread use of solar panels in the middle of an ice age. Please, please, please, please.it makes economic sense to install solar farms along all 2,000 miles (or so) of those transmission lines .
Energy is conserved ... solar panels won't destroy it ... if anything, solar panels would increase surface temperatures ... retaining that energy for longer periods of time ... if you'll notice, solar panels look black to the naked eye ... desert sands are tanish to white ... think rural Nevada ...
Given the hysteria over the use of fossil fuels and climate, one would think that my claim would not be dismissed off hand. Especially since we are in the middle of an ice age with the planet so uniquely configured for glacial cycles and us being only 120 ppm from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation.
As a simple experiment ... measure the air temperature just above a solar panel and compare that to the temperature just above an adjacent patch of lawn ... do you predict the solar panel will be cooler? ... or will it be warmer? ...
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
No...I would bet that 20% of the generation capacity comes from "renewables". Most renewables have a capacity factor of about 25%.I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.
I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.Watch the documentaryI don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claimsI've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.
The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.
but here
Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…
Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels
Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.
Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous
Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.
Not really. That's a lie that they tell you. There is no real time monitoring of the energy production because if there were, everyone could see it was a lie.
Here in carson city the local middle school erected a solar power system to much fanfare.
They even had real time monitoring of the energy created.....for a month. The actual production was so low people, like me, figured out the system would never pay for itself.
The monitoring went away immediately after questions started being asked.
It's like you don't even FLoT. Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the planet.I disagree. First of all other energy sources that are used to generate electricity do not capture solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet. So from a budget standpoint that supposed energy conservation is already added to the system without reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet. Secondly, whatever energy you might think is being conserved through the use of electricity will not heat the surface of the planet. And lastly, much of the energy that you believe is conserved is being conserved by doing mechanical work (kinetic or potential) and will not heat the surface of the earth.Please don't get me started on the shortsightedness of widespread use of solar panels in the middle of an ice age. Please, please, please, please.it makes economic sense to install solar farms along all 2,000 miles (or so) of those transmission lines .
Energy is conserved ... solar panels won't destroy it ... if anything, solar panels would increase surface temperatures ... retaining that energy for longer periods of time ... if you'll notice, solar panels look black to the naked eye ... desert sands are tanish to white ... think rural Nevada ...
Given the hysteria over the use of fossil fuels and climate, one would think that my claim would not be dismissed off hand. Especially since we are in the middle of an ice age with the planet so uniquely configured for glacial cycles and us being only 120 ppm from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation.
As a simple experiment ... measure the air temperature just above a solar panel and compare that to the temperature just above an adjacent patch of lawn ... do you predict the solar panel will be cooler? ... or will it be warmer? ...
Impact of solar panels on global climate
Regardless of the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels on global climate, other energy sources will become more important in the future because fossil fuels could run out by the early twenty-second century given the present rate of consumption. This implies that sooner or later humanity will...
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu
"...We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels..."
Seems straightforward enough to me. It's a simple material balance.I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.Watch the documentaryI don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claimsI've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.
The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.
but here
Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…
Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels
Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.
Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous
Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.
Not really. That's a lie that they tell you. There is no real time monitoring of the energy production because if there were, everyone could see it was a lie.
Here in carson city the local middle school erected a solar power system to much fanfare.
They even had real time monitoring of the energy created.....for a month. The actual production was so low people, like me, figured out the system would never pay for itself.
The monitoring went away immediately after questions started being asked.
I am talking about actual generated electricity. I am not talking about installed capacity.No...I would bet that 20% of the generation capacity comes from "renewables". Most renewables have a capacity factor of about 25%.I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.
Last edited:
Hydrocarbons are easily transported. You even said it yourself that 20% of the electricity in your area is generated from natural gas fired plants.I'm an engineer. I always factor in economics. So economics were factored into my statement. Everything is constrained by economics. Some more than others.Correct but it's a lot longer than most people think it is.Climate change is a hoax ... running out of fossil fuels is not
I disagree ... just look at how fast the Alarmists are blowing through the stuff ... they certainly think our fossil fuel supply will last a very long time ...
We may have already exhausted our supply of cheap fossil fuel ... and we're currently burning our not-so-cheap fossil fuel ... how long until we have to start burning our hey-this-shit's-getting-expensive fossil fuels? ...
So the better question is when will renewables become more economical than burning fossil fuels ... and what should a good Capitalist do when that day comes ...
Unconventional OIL resources are massive and are more so constrained by economics than conventional reservoirs.
Conventional natural gas resources are massive and less constrained by economics than unconventional reservoirs.
Unconventional natural gas resources are massive and more so constrained by economics than conventional natural gas reservoirs.
Coal resources are just plain massive.
Bottom line... the ECONOMIC life of fossil fuels is longer than most people imagine.
Bottom line... the ECONOMIC life of fossil fuels is longer than most people imagine.
Texas has oil, Oregon doesn't ... that changes the economies ... Oregon has water, Texas doesn't ... why fault me for using hydro? ... why fault desert dwellers their solar panels? ...
Yes ... I'm aware of how God-awful much natural gas is burned off at the well head ... we can see it from space ... pipe that up, use it in technologically advanced power stations ... but most people can imagine the life-span of a small star at a trillion years ... some folks might think that's a long time ... not sure fossil fuels will last that long to be honest ...
Conservation saves money ... do we need any other reason to curtail fossil fuel use? ...
You make it sound like flaring natural gas is common. Not so for the large oil fields which have no market for the associated gas. Gas re-injection is pretty common in the larger oil fields. And no one is flaring gas from a gas field. That would be idiotic.
How long do you think fossil fuels will last?
Yes, conservation is good. It's smart. But I wouldn't use the word "curtail" in that context. I would use "conserve" instead.
I live in Texas. 20% of our electric power comes from renewables.Watch the documentaryI don't believe that is correct. What data are you basing that upon?And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claimsI've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.
The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.
but here
Global Energy Demand and Fossil Fuel Consumption Rose in 2018, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas consumption increased more than any other fuel in 2018,…
Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels
Learn how Germany's policies of favoring renewable energy sources has actually increased the country's dependence on fossil fuels.
Replacing Fossil Fuels With Renewables Is Impossible And Fiscally Ruinous
Trying to solve any problem with a fix that defies the laws of physics is bound to fail.
Not really. That's a lie that they tell you. There is no real time monitoring of the energy production because if there were, everyone could see it was a lie.
Here in carson city the local middle school erected a solar power system to much fanfare.
They even had real time monitoring of the energy created.....for a month. The actual production was so low people, like me, figured out the system would never pay for itself.
The monitoring went away immediately after questions started being asked.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
And what the green energy people won't tell you is that there has been no decrease in the use of fossil fuel generated power despite their claimsI've been saying for 10 years the climate crusaders need a Plan B. They scoff at it....but 10 years have passed and they still haven't accomplished dick with the same old tired narrative.
The "science" has not transcended anywhere past its own field and some community message boards.
Energy policy makers still not giving a crap.
Exactly......fossil fuels still DOMINATE and will for many decades yet these bozo's are still debating the "science"
They cant blame me......for 10 years in here, Ive sanctioned that they go for a Plan B with their message strategy. No dice......its the same tired crap every day. The same ghey graphs.........the same ghey colorful maps......the same ghey organization statements. d0y
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 120
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 100
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 405
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 141
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 93
- Views
- 375
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 4
- Replies
- 517
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8513
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-