Renewable Energy: Still Breaking Wind

Discussion in 'Energy' started by longknife, Dec 24, 2012.

  1. hadit
    Offline

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    21,503
    Thanks Received:
    2,457
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,657
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    45,446
    Thanks Received:
    6,108
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +18,775
    and there are newer designs that can replace the current and quite frankly obsolete reactors we use today
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,999
    Thanks Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,836
    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.
     
  4. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,999
    Thanks Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,836
    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
     
  5. hadit
    Offline

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    21,503
    Thanks Received:
    2,457
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,657
    You're making my point for me. I wonder if you'll ever realize that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,999
    Thanks Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,836
    You can not make your point, let alone me. I get it, you have no argument other than a Utopian fantasy.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    58,942
    Thanks Received:
    7,171
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,868
    Wind and Solar Costs Are Plummeting: Now What Do We Do?

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


    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]

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

    [​IMG]

    LOL
     
  8. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,999
    Thanks Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,836
    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.
     
  9. hadit
    Offline

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    21,503
    Thanks Received:
    2,457
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,657
    Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,999
    Thanks Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,836
    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.
     

Share This Page