Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies

[Crick]

I assume you mean nuclear power. I also like nuclear power, but it has a very high capital cost, it is not cheap to operate and there are restrictions on where it can be built. The same is true of hydroelectricity, geothermal, wave, tide and OTEC power systems.

These days, the term "alternative energy" means an alternative to fossil fuel. That goes beyond just wind and solar.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I assume you mean nuclear power. I also like nuclear power, but it has a very high capital cost, it is not cheap to operate and there are restrictions on where it can be built. The same is true of hydroelectricity, geothermal, wave, tide and OTEC power systems.

These days, the term "alternative energy" means an alternative to fossil fuel. That goes beyond just wind and solar.

Only if you use today's obsolete reactors as a model.

New tech promises to be safer and cheaper than our current outdated reactors

 

[Crick]

I agree, but not cheaper than many of the alternatives.

And, of course, you will have to overcome the memories of Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Cheap" wind still needs fossil fuel backups. I guess it's not as cheap as you claim.
As shown by German electricity rates nearly 4 times ours.

Let's see, Two countries, A and B, were just formed out of the empty wilderness. Country A has built from scratch a 100% fossil fuel energy grid. Country B, of an identical size, population and total power consumption, has built a grid powered 50% by fossil fuel and 50% by wind. Which country then spends more per year for their energy? Why does the ZERO FUEL COST parameter just seem to go in one denier ear and out the other?

Country A has built from scratch a 100% fossil fuel energy grid.

Excellent! Call it 100 nat gas plants. 250 MW each. 25,000 MW total.

Country B, of an identical size, population and total power consumption, has built a grid powered 50% by fossil fuel and 50% by wind.

How much nameplate capacity of wind would you have to build? 30,000 MW? 40,000 MW?
How much fossil fuel backup does the 50% wind component require?
5,000 MW? 10,000 MW?

Why does the ZERO FUEL COST parameter just seem to go in one denier ear and out the other?

Why do warmers ignore the total cost of their windmills and only focus on the zero fuel cost?

 

[Crick]

Because the cost of the former is made back in short order by the savings of the latter. Do you think coal or natural gas plants just spring from the ground? How quickly do they pay for themselves?

Oh... they don't? They just cost more and more and more as time goes by?

Then why the fuck do you want to build them?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because the cost of the former is made back in short order by the savings of the latter. Do you think coal or natural gas plants just spring from the ground? How quickly do they pay for themselves?

Oh... they don't?

Then why the fuck do you want to build them?

Because the cost of the former is made back in short order by the savings of the latter.

How long does wind take to pay for itself?

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Cheap" wind still needs fossil fuel backups. I guess it's not as cheap as you claim.
As shown by German electricity rates nearly 4 times ours.

Let's see, Two countries, A and B, were just formed out of the empty wilderness. Country A has built from scratch a 100% fossil fuel energy grid. Country B, of an identical size, population and total power consumption, has built a grid powered 50% by fossil fuel and 50% by wind. Which country then spends more per year for their energy? Why does the ZERO FUEL COST parameter just seem to go in one denier ear and out the other?

Country A has built from scratch a 100% fossil fuel energy grid.

Excellent! Call it 100 nat gas plants. 250 MW each. 25,000 MW total.

Country B, of an identical size, population and total power consumption, has built a grid powered 50% by fossil fuel and 50% by wind.

How much nameplate capacity of wind would you have to build? 30,000 MW? 40,000 MW?
How much fossil fuel backup does the 50% wind component require?
5,000 MW? 10,000 MW?

Why does the ZERO FUEL COST parameter just seem to go in one denier ear and out the other?

Why do warmers ignore the total cost of their windmills and only focus on the zero fuel cost?

Backup will need to be enough to take on the whole grid all of the time. SO if the country needs 25Mw they would have to build 30Mw of gas or coal fired plants and 75Mw of wind power facilities (remember wind only generates 1/5th the name plate value in the best of conditions and far less most of the time) If you want 15Mw of output from wind you need five times that amount + cushion for repair and down time of equipment.
15 x 5 = 75
75 X110. % = 82.5Mw... (name plate value)

 

[Crick]

You think all alternative sources will all go down at once?

Remind yourself why you don't actually have a degree in any form of science or engineering.

A hint: before a single wind turbine was built, the country already had enough capacity to satisfy their entire demand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think all alternative sources will all go down at once?

Remind yourself why you don't actually have a degree in any form of science or engineering.

A hint: before a single wind turbine was built, the country already had enough capacity to satisfy their entire demand.

A hint: before a single wind turbine was built, the country already had enough capacity to satisfy their entire demand.

All the renewables won't result in the closing of any existing generating plants?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because the cost of the former is made back in short order by the savings of the latter. Do you think coal or natural gas plants just spring from the ground? How quickly do they pay for themselves?

Oh... they don't? They just cost more and more and more as time goes by?

Then why the fuck do you want to build them?

Do you think coal or natural gas plants just spring from the ground? How quickly do they pay for themselves? Oh... they don't?

Coal and natural gas plants don't earn a profit? DERP!


Then why the fuck do you want to build them?

Cheap, reliable electricity is a good thing.

You never mentioned how much fossil fuel backup your new, from scratch 50% wind country needs.

 

[jc456]

The base where I do most of my work has been powered for many years by a diesel power plant. Recently, the government installed a single, 1MW wind turbine on base that is fully integrated with the existing system. The base still uses it's diesel generators but when the wind is above 8-10 knots, they are able to shut down several of them. In the turbine's first month of operation is saved the government ~$30,000 in fuel costs.

Deniers seem to make the assumption that adding wind or solar always requires ADDING fossil fuel systems as backup. That is not the case.

Dude, just gotta laugh at your inability to recognize what you post then make a statement that is against what you wrote. You just told us the base can only use the wind turbines at 8-10 miles an hour wind periods. What do they use when there isn't that wind? Oh yeah, the back up diesel generators. Dude, you're truly special. Thanks for the laugh

 

[Skull Pilot]

I agree, but not cheaper than many of the alternatives.

And, of course, you will have to overcome the memories of Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

3 mile Island didn't kill anyone
Chernobyl was a faulty design only ever used in that one reactor

And new tech reactors do not need massive quantities of water and operate at atmosphere not under pressure and can be buried underground

Nuclear is really the only viable option for large scale reliable emission free power

 

[Billy_Bob]

You think all alternative sources will all go down at once?

Remind yourself why you don't actually have a degree in any form of science or engineering.

A hint: before a single wind turbine was built, the country already had enough capacity to satisfy their entire demand.

Tell me, how do you engineer a system that is reliable and can be maintained? You obviously don't have a clue.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The base where I do most of my work has been powered for many years by a diesel power plant. Recently, the government installed a single, 1MW wind turbine on base that is fully integrated with the existing system. The base still uses it's diesel generators but when the wind is above 8-10 knots, they are able to shut down several of them. In the turbine's first month of operation is saved the government ~$30,000 in fuel costs.

Deniers seem to make the assumption that adding wind or solar always requires ADDING fossil fuel systems as backup. That is not the case.

Dude, just gotta laugh at your inability to recognize what you post then make a statement that is against what you wrote. You just told us the base can only use the wind turbines at 8-10 miles an hour wind periods. What do they use when there isn't that wind? Oh yeah, the back up diesel generators. Dude, you're truly special. Thanks for the laugh

Crick doesn't have a clue about what happens when the wind dies down.. His ignorance of how they design systems for reliability is stunning. even here whereI live, a wind zone 5-6, 15 hours a day there is no wind and half of the time the wind is 1/2 of what is needed for optimal outputs. He simply does not understand the problems with this joke they want forced on us.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The base where I do most of my work has been powered for many years by a diesel power plant. Recently, the government installed a single, 1MW wind turbine on base that is fully integrated with the existing system. The base still uses it's diesel generators but when the wind is above 8-10 knots, they are able to shut down several of them. In the turbine's first month of operation is saved the government ~$30,000 in fuel costs.

Deniers seem to make the assumption that adding wind or solar always requires ADDING fossil fuel systems as backup. That is not the case.

Dude, just gotta laugh at your inability to recognize what you post then make a statement that is against what you wrote. You just told us the base can only use the wind turbines at 8-10 miles an hour wind periods. What do they use when there isn't that wind? Oh yeah, the back up diesel generators. Dude, you're truly special. Thanks for the laugh

Crick doesn't have a clue about what happens when the wind dies down.. His ignorance of how they design systems for reliability is stunning. even here whereI live, a wind zone 5-6, 15 hours a day there is no wind and half of the time the wind is 1/2 of what is needed for optimal outputs. He simply does not understand the problems with this joke they want forced on us.

Germany's real life performance of their wind power is about 17% rated capacity

No energy source that performs that badly is worth investing in

 

[Crick]

17% of advertised capacity? Bullshit. There is a performance gap but, in "real life" it is closer to 1-3% of advertised capacity than whatever nonsense you think you know. Find us a turbine maker who guarantees output with no wind.

http://www.ewea.org/events/workshops/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/Analysis_of_Operating_Wind_farms/EWEA Workshop Lyon - 5-2 Michael Brower AWS Truepower.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

17% of advertised capacity? Bullshit. There is a performance gap but, in "real life" it is closer to 1-3% of advertised capacity than whatever nonsense you think you know. Find us a turbine maker who guarantees output with no wind.

http://www.ewea.org/events/workshops/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/Analysis_of_Operating_Wind_farms/EWEA Workshop Lyon - 5-2 Michael Brower AWS Truepower.pdf

So you think down time should not be counted against them.? You really are that ignorant? Now I see why you think Socialism is good.. You don't count the time it doesn't work as a failure to hold against it,,,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

17% of advertised capacity? Bullshit. There is a performance gap but, in "real life" it is closer to 1-3% of advertised capacity than whatever nonsense you think you know. Find us a turbine maker who guarantees output with no wind.

http://www.ewea.org/events/workshops/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/Analysis_of_Operating_Wind_farms/EWEA Workshop Lyon - 5-2 Michael Brower AWS Truepower.pdf

Cons of Wind Energy
1. Wind Reliability: Wind doesn’t generally blow reliably, and turbines usually function at about 30% capacity or so. In the event that the weather is not going to support you, you may wind up without power (or at any rate you’ll need to depend on the electric company to take care of you during those times). Serious storms or high winds may cause harm to your wind turbine, particularly when they are struck by lightning.

7 Pros and Cons of Wind Energy - Conserve Energy Future

 

[Crick]

Which has nothing to do with the design or construction of wind turbines. How much power do you get out of a natural gas power plant that has no natural gas?

Do you think countries, states, cities, whatever, that purchase wind turbine power systems are unaware that they need wind to make power?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which has nothing to do with the design or construction of wind turbines. How much power do you get out of a natural gas power plant that has no natural gas?

Do you think countries, states, cities, whatever, that purchase wind turbine power systems are unaware that they need wind to make power?

in "real life" it is closer to 1-3% of advertised capacity

It's funny that you misunderstand what they're saying here.