Renewable Energy: Still Breaking Wind

[elektra]

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Hydro is a renewable. And both solar and wind produce electricity in this nation by the by the giga-watt. And you are trying to tell us that you cannot use giga-watts of to produce the parts for a wind mill, or a solar panel. The electricity produced by solar and wind go on the grid, same as electricity from any other source. Now how can you tell me that electricity is not used in manufacturing. Do you think they label the electrons wind, solar, coal produced, ect.

You just get increasingly stupid as time goes on.

You can't make steel with just "electrons", Old Crock, you have made the claim that you worked in the steel industry, so you must know the truth. You need Coal to make steel or aluminum, period. You can not make steel or aluminum without Coal. I guess you might be able to make the argument you could get the carbon required from Natural Gas? Yes? But my post stands as based in Science whereas your post is a crock.

How come Venezuela does not have the electricity to run its economy if Hydro is Renewable? Venezuela is electricity is produced by Hydro, 71%!

If Hydroelectric Power is Renewable, how come Venezuela does not simply renew, the hydro? Instead of suffering the collapse of its economy?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ms. Elektra, you are hopelessly stupid. Every hear of electric furnaces?

A schematic cross-section through an EAF. Three electrodes (yellow), molten bath (gold), tapping spout at left, refractory brick movable roof, brick shell, and a refractory-lined bowl-shaped hearth.

Electric arc furnace - Wikipedia

 

[hadit]

There's no reason we can't have both. Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources. Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.

Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.

If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.

Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.

You fail to consider the long view. Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible. Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.

The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.

 

[elektra]

There's no reason we can't have both. Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources. Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.

Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.

If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.

Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.

You fail to consider the long view. Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible. Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.

The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.

No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.

 

[hadit]

There's no reason we can't have both. Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources. Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.

Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.

If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.

Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.

You fail to consider the long view. Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible. Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.

The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.

No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.

You're not understanding. There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't. The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year. Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time. The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them.

We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it. You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.

 

[elektra]

There's no reason we can't have both. Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources. Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.

Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.

If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.

Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.

You fail to consider the long view. Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible. Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.

The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.

No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.

You're not understanding. There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't. The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year. Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time. The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them.

We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it. You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.

Short sighted, would be your response. You are responding out of feelings, a belief. What do you actually know about wind and solar.

Solar in the desert? Far from where it is used? 50% loss of electricity for every 50 miles of power line.

Solar in the desert, how many millions of gallons of water to clean the solar panels of desert dust?

And then, how many 100's of square miles of wildlife habitat do you want destroyrd.

Wind Power? I have seen 3-4 companies by the same wind farms and go bankrupt. I have seen 3 generations of wind turbines in 25 years. They do not last long at all. They use 300 gallons of oil a year, millions of gallons of oil. They are garbage. What do you know about any of this? Nothing.

$44 trillion dollars is your price tag to give us 5% of our energy. After it is all built it will be trillions more, right away to replace the thousands that fail. After 10 yesrs of operation it is all garbage thst gets replaced

$44 trillion dollars spent on nuclear power would give us 200% of the power we need, for the next 75 years.

Yea, lets actually discuss the facts, like how much coal and oil is needed by the renewable energy industry.

I have had the same debate on this message board so it will be easy.

I can dig up an old thread withh all the links and information.

From coke/coal to smelt the steel. To propene that comes from oil to make fiberglass.

Or, carbon supplied from natural gas to make carbon fiber blades for wind turbines.

None of this have you researched nor any on your side of the debate.

Yes, to use your words, dont be a short sighted idiot when you advocate for something you know nothing of.

 

[Skull Pilot]

by Steven Hayward at Powerline blog

Not working

Read more @ Renewable Energy: Still Breaking Wind | Power Line

LOL A very funny read four years later. What a dumbass that wrote that.

Wind Energy Investment Increases Worldwide

Global Status Report - REN21

2015 was an extraordinary year for renewable energy. Renewables are now cost competitive with fossil fuels in many markets and are established around the world as mainstream sources of energy. Cities, communities and companies are leading the rapidly expanding “100% renewable” movement. Distributed renewable energy is advancing rapidly to close the energy access gap. Read the report and check out REN21’s Renewables Interactive Map for country specific data.

Read more at: Global Status Report - REN21

Global Status Report - REN21

Just because people spend money and governemnt subsidies on wind doesn't mean it's a good alternative.

Wind has failed in the UK and Germany and it will fail here as well

 

[Skull Pilot]

There's no reason we can't have both. Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources. Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.

Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.

If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.

Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.

You fail to consider the long view. Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible. Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.

The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.

No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.

You're not understanding. There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't. The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year. Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time. The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them.

We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it. You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.

Short sighted, would be your response. You are responding out of feelings, a belief. What do you actually know about wind and solar.

Solar in the desert? Far from where it is used? 50% loss of electricity for every 50 miles of power line.

Solar in the desert, how many millions of gallons of water to clean the solar panels of desert dust?

And then, how many 100's of square miles of wildlife habitat do you want destroyrd.

Wind Power? I have seen 3-4 companies by the same wind farms and go bankrupt. I have seen 3 generations of wind turbines in 25 years. They do not last long at all. They use 300 gallons of oil a year, millions of gallons of oil. They are garbage. What do you know about any of this? Nothing.

$44 trillion dollars is your price tag to give us 5% of our energy. After it is all built it will be trillions more, right away to replace the thousands that fail. After 10 yesrs of operation it is all garbage thst gets replaced

$44 trillion dollars spent on nuclear power would give us 200% of the power we need, for the next 75 years.

Yea, lets actually discuss the facts, like how much coal and oil is needed by the renewable energy industry.

I have had the same debate on this message board so it will be easy.

I can dig up an old thread withh all the links and information.

From coke/coal to smelt the steel. To propene that comes from oil to make fiberglass.

Or, carbon supplied from natural gas to make carbon fiber blades for wind turbines.

None of this have you researched nor any on your side of the debate.

Yes, to use your words, dont be a short sighted idiot when you advocate for something you know nothing of.

not to mention that wind turbines only produce on average less than 25% of their rated capacity and that can dip to as low as 15%

 

[Skull Pilot]

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers

Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?

shall I go on or will you wind lovers finally admit that the best option for emission free abundant and reliable power 24/7/365 is nuclear?

Nuclear Electricity's Bright Future

 

[hadit]

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers

Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?

shall I go on or will you wind lovers finally admit that the best option for emission free abundant and reliable power 24/7/365 is nuclear?

Nuclear Electricity's Bright Future

Nuclear is certainly one of the best long-term alternatives, especially with modern safety technology.

 

[hadit]

There's no reason we can't have both. Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources. Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.

Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.

If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.

Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.

You fail to consider the long view. Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible. Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.

The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.

No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.

You're not understanding. There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't. The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year. Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time. The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them.

We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it. You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.

Short sighted, would be your response. You are responding out of feelings, a belief. What do you actually know about wind and solar.

Solar in the desert? Far from where it is used? 50% loss of electricity for every 50 miles of power line.

Solar in the desert, how many millions of gallons of water to clean the solar panels of desert dust?

And then, how many 100's of square miles of wildlife habitat do you want destroyrd.

Wind Power? I have seen 3-4 companies by the same wind farms and go bankrupt. I have seen 3 generations of wind turbines in 25 years. They do not last long at all. They use 300 gallons of oil a year, millions of gallons of oil. They are garbage. What do you know about any of this? Nothing.

$44 trillion dollars is your price tag to give us 5% of our energy. After it is all built it will be trillions more, right away to replace the thousands that fail. After 10 yesrs of operation it is all garbage thst gets replaced

$44 trillion dollars spent on nuclear power would give us 200% of the power we need, for the next 75 years.

Yea, lets actually discuss the facts, like how much coal and oil is needed by the renewable energy industry.

I have had the same debate on this message board so it will be easy.

I can dig up an old thread withh all the links and information.

From coke/coal to smelt the steel. To propene that comes from oil to make fiberglass.

Or, carbon supplied from natural gas to make carbon fiber blades for wind turbines.

None of this have you researched nor any on your side of the debate.

Yes, to use your words, dont be a short sighted idiot when you advocate for something you know nothing of.

Oh, please do dig through history to amuse yourself, and while you're at it, realize that most of the objections to any alternative energy source lie in the assumption that it alone must provide all of the energy we need. There is, however, no imperative to power the nation solely through, in this case, wind power.

That is the mistake extremists continually make, assuming that energy production is an all or nothing game while it simply is not. Trying to shoehorn a solution into a place where it doesn't work is as foolish as refusing to use it where it does.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers

Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?

shall I go on or will you wind lovers finally admit that the best option for emission free abundant and reliable power 24/7/365 is nuclear?

Nuclear Electricity's Bright Future

Nuclear is certainly one of the best long-term alternatives, especially with modern safety technology.

and there are newer designs that can replace the current and quite frankly obsolete reactors we use today

 

[elektra]

Oh, please do dig through history to amuse yourself, and while you're at it, realize that most of the objections to any alternative energy source lie in the assumption that it alone must provide all of the energy we need. There is, however, no imperative to power the nation solely through, in this case, wind power.

That is the mistake extremists continually make, assuming that energy production is an all or nothing game while it simply is not. Trying to shoehorn a solution into a place where it doesn't work is as foolish as refusing to use it where it does.

Ha,ha,ha, you can't argue the technical aspects of solar and wind. You cant address the pollution or the land they destroy. You cant address the raw materials they consume. Instead you construct a strawman arguement that it is opposed because renewables cant provide a 100% of our power?

Right, pure strawman, I have never heard one conservative or republican oppose renewables because they can not provide a 100% of our power.

Wind and Solar have failed, the solution to fux Solar and Wind, the scientific techological engineering idea to fix solar and wind, that would be, MAKE THEM BIGGER!

YOU COULD NEVER POWER THE NATION SOLELY ON WIND POWER, you would run out of money, long before you reach that goal.

Nope, we oppose the $44 trillion dollar price tag, and considering governtment spending, the bill will be more like a $100 trillion.

Your idea has failed, in california, in spain, in greece, everywhere it is trued, it has failed.

 

[elektra]

Electric arc furnace - Wikipedia

Ms. Elektra, you are hopelessly stupid. Every hear of electric furnaces?

Electra: "You need Coal to make steel or aluminum, period. You can not make steel or aluminum without Coal"

Sure Old Crock, I have heard of Electric Arc Furnaces, if you had half a brain you would realize we had this discussion in the past.

Just when I think someone is a bigger moron than Old Crock, Old Crock makes a stupid post proving nobody has less brains than Old Crock.

I stated you can not make steel or Aluminum with just electricity, you need Coke. Old Crock has provided a link that Old Crock thinks proves me wrong. Now would it not be hilarious if Old Crock's link proves Old Crock is more stupid than a rock! That would be funny, well, I am going to use Old Crock's link!

Electric arc furnace - Wikipedia

Later in the heat, carbon (in the form of coke or coal) is injected into this slag layer, reacting with the iron oxide to form metallic iron and carbon monoxide gas, which then causes the slag to foam, allowing greater thermal efficiency, and better arc stability and electrical efficiency

 

[hadit]

Oh, please do dig through history to amuse yourself, and while you're at it, realize that most of the objections to any alternative energy source lie in the assumption that it alone must provide all of the energy we need. There is, however, no imperative to power the nation solely through, in this case, wind power.

That is the mistake extremists continually make, assuming that energy production is an all or nothing game while it simply is not. Trying to shoehorn a solution into a place where it doesn't work is as foolish as refusing to use it where it does.

Ha,ha,ha, you can't argue the technical aspects of solar and wind. You cant address the pollution or the land they destroy. You cant address the raw materials they consume. Instead you construct a strawman arguement that it is opposed because renewables cant provide a 100% of our power?

Right, pure strawman, I have never heard one conservative or republican oppose renewables because they can not provide a 100% of our power.

Wind and Solar have failed, the solution to fux Solar and Wind, the scientific techological engineering idea to fix solar and wind, that would be, MAKE THEM BIGGER!

YOU COULD NEVER POWER THE NATION SOLELY ON WIND POWER, you would run out of money, long before you reach that goal.

Nope, we oppose the $44 trillion dollar price tag, and considering governtment spending, the bill will be more like a $100 trillion.

Your idea has failed, in california, in spain, in greece, everywhere it is trued, it has failed.

You're making my point for me. I wonder if you'll ever realize that.

 

[elektra]

You're making my point for me. I wonder if you'll ever realize that.

You can not make your point, let alone me. I get it, you have no argument other than a Utopian fantasy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind and Solar Costs Are Plummeting: Now What Do We Do?

by 3p Contributor on Monday, Jan 2nd, 2017 CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT

By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy: In investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies, renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean-versus-cost on its head. And in 2017, we’ll be asking: How much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without federal subsidies like tax credits.

What does levelized cost of energy mean?
Lazard uses LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component – capital expenditure to build, operations and maintenance, and fuel costs to run – spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines are even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

LOL

 

[elektra]

Or is it $44 trillion dollars, that they propose to spend on renewables?

$71 Trillion Bonus for Us If We Switch to Clean Energy

The report also puts a number on these things. It projects that we will need to invest $44 trillion globally by 2050 in order to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius.

 

[hadit]

You're making my point for me. I wonder if you'll ever realize that.

You can not make your point, let alone me. I get it, you have no argument other than a Utopian fantasy.

Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.

 

[elektra]

You're making my point for me. I wonder if
Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.

That figure comes from the Renewable energy folks, matthew's link.

Clean Energy: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity — Ceres

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to invest $44 trillion in clean energy by 2050 – an average of $1.2 trillion per year for the next 36 years.