Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012

[Dubya]

According to the best estimates....your worst case scenario would still take on the order of 13,000 years before the effects became noticeable. Pennies out of my pockets? No, trillions of dollars robbed from the citizens of this planet you stupid twerp.

Dream on, it's been and it's now pennies out of your pocket. I've posted this shit before on places like WUWT. I was thrown off the site for saying free speech isn't free when someone is paying for it. I was censored all the time being on their site.

You're talking to a person of science, who has put the horse in the other quarter. Go to the debate sites and start a discussion/debate! I'm good at calling you names and I'll also good at sticking to a subject. I haven't been there, but I think they follow debating rules. Try your dumbshit in there, because I know the tactics of being too much dumb!

No, you wipe your ass with "science". Science is neither political, nor does it bother itself with morality or with truth. Science deals in facts. Facts that you choose to either ignore or alter to suit your political goal. That makes you a whore. Not a person of science.

What am I, I can't tell you what the future is, but I can tell it won't be normal and the future starts now.

 

[westwall]

Dream on, it's been and it's now pennies out of your pocket. I've posted this shit before on places like WUWT. I was thrown off the site for saying free speech isn't free when someone is paying for it. I was censored all the time being on their site.

You're talking to a person of science, who has put the horse in the other quarter. Go to the debate sites and start a discussion/debate! I'm good at calling you names and I'll also good at sticking to a subject. I haven't been there, but I think they follow debating rules. Try your dumbshit in there, because I know the tactics of being too much dumb!

No, you wipe your ass with "science". Science is neither political, nor does it bother itself with morality or with truth. Science deals in facts. Facts that you choose to either ignore or alter to suit your political goal. That makes you a whore. Not a person of science.

What am I, I can't tell you what the future is, but I can tell it won't be normal and the future starts now.

Punch any year you wish into google and then type storm. You will find that nothing happening now is out of the ordinary. Want major flooding? Look up The Great Drowning of men in the 1600's, want major wind storms look up the UK in the 1800's when they occurred with amazing regularity. Want a major rain storm? Look up the biblical CA flood of the 1860's when central CA was an inland lake 200 miles long by 30 miles wide.

Not one of your claims is real. History proves your claims to be the lies they are....that's why you try and revise history at every opportunity.

Person of science my ass.

 

[emptystep]

Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012


By Ehren Goossens & Christopher Martin - Dec 21, 2012 9:01 PM PT

Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012 - Bloomberg

Wind-turbine installations are poised to exceed natural gas-fueled power plants in the U.S. for the first time this year as developers race to complete projects before a renewable energy tax credit expires.
New wind capacity reached 6,519 megawatts by Nov. 30, beating the 6,335 megawatts of gas additions and more than double those of coal, according to data from Ventyx Inc., which is owned by the Swiss power transmission equipment maker ABB Ltd. (ABBN) The company plans to release final tallies in January.
“Wind will very likely beat gas, but it may be close,” said Amy Grace, who leads North American wind industry analysis for Bloomberg New Energy Finance in New York. “It’s very likely that we get over 8 gigawatts for 2012.” ...
(read rest at link)

Fossil fuels are today's buggy whips and bayonets of today. Given the impact on the environment the faster we transition the better.

 

[SSDD]

Person of science my ass.

Claiming that he is a "person of science" is laughable. Have you ever noticed that he is as completely unable to acutally discuss any scientific topic in his own words? Like rolling thunder, he just cuts and pastes materials that he doesn't understand and simply assumes that everyone else opens up to swallow whatever they are spoon fed like him.

 

[emptystep]

Sorry to jump off topic a bit but I just heard it on the TV and thought it worth repeating but not a new thread.

Studies have shown that there is a direct inverse relation between the amount of traffic congestion and the amount of pollution.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Samson]

Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012


By Ehren Goossens & Christopher Martin - Dec 21, 2012 9:01 PM PT

Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012 - Bloomberg

Wind-turbine installations are poised to exceed natural gas-fueled power plants in the U.S. for the first time this year as developers race to complete projects before a renewable energy tax credit expires.
New wind capacity reached 6,519 megawatts by Nov. 30, beating the 6,335 megawatts of gas additions and more than double those of coal, according to data from Ventyx Inc., which is owned by the Swiss power transmission equipment maker ABB Ltd. (ABBN) The company plans to release final tallies in January.
“Wind will very likely beat gas, but it may be close,” said Amy Grace, who leads North American wind industry analysis for Bloomberg New Energy Finance in New York. “It’s very likely that we get over 8 gigawatts for 2012.” ...
(read rest at link)

NEW WIND CAPACITY = 6519 megawatts



Sounds great.

Until you examine this:

6519 megawatts is rediculously small....but of greater concern is that no energy source seems to be growing at a terribly large rate.

 

[skookerasbil]

Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012


By Ehren Goossens & Christopher Martin - Dec 21, 2012 9:01 PM PT

Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012 - Bloomberg

Wind-turbine installations are poised to exceed natural gas-fueled power plants in the U.S. for the first time this year as developers race to complete projects before a renewable energy tax credit expires.
New wind capacity reached 6,519 megawatts by Nov. 30, beating the 6,335 megawatts of gas additions and more than double those of coal, according to data from Ventyx Inc., which is owned by the Swiss power transmission equipment maker ABB Ltd. (ABBN) The company plans to release final tallies in January.
“Wind will very likely beat gas, but it may be close,” said Amy Grace, who leads North American wind industry analysis for Bloomberg New Energy Finance in New York. “It’s very likely that we get over 8 gigawatts for 2012.” ...
(read rest at link)

NEW WIND CAPACITY = 6519 megawatts



Sounds great.

Until you examine this:

6519 megawatts is rediculously small....but of greater concern is that no energy source seems to be growing at a terribly large rate.

LMAO.....but one of these jackasses will post up a story in a few days about how wind power is growing at 150%!!!!! I will admit, it does play to a certain audience.........the uninformed, of course.

 

[Samson]

Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012


By Ehren Goossens & Christopher Martin - Dec 21, 2012 9:01 PM PT

Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012 - Bloomberg

Wind-turbine installations are poised to exceed natural gas-fueled power plants in the U.S. for the first time this year as developers race to complete projects before a renewable energy tax credit expires.
New wind capacity reached 6,519 megawatts by Nov. 30, beating the 6,335 megawatts of gas additions and more than double those of coal, according to data from Ventyx Inc., which is owned by the Swiss power transmission equipment maker ABB Ltd. (ABBN) The company plans to release final tallies in January.
“Wind will very likely beat gas, but it may be close,” said Amy Grace, who leads North American wind industry analysis for Bloomberg New Energy Finance in New York. “It’s very likely that we get over 8 gigawatts for 2012.” ...
(read rest at link)

NEW WIND CAPACITY = 6519 megawatts



Sounds great.

Until you examine this:

6519 megawatts is rediculously small....but of greater concern is that no energy source seems to be growing at a terribly large rate.

LMAO.....but one of these jackasses will post up a story in a few days about how wind power is growing at 150%!!!!! I will admit, it does play to a certain audience.........the uninformed, of course.

Their delusional headline, "Wind Power Beating Natural Gas in US," is indicative of how dangerous a little knowledge can be.

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

 

[Trakar]

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

"Suppress" development? You mean "make conform to appropriate emission control standards?" If we make coal, oil and gas cover the costs of dealing with the emissions created as they are introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet (effect mitigation and adaptation), then energy systems can compete in a balanced market where all of the societal costs for each system is accounted for.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

"Suppress" development? You mean "make conform to appropriate emission control standards?" If we make coal, oil and gas cover the costs of dealing with the emissions created as they are introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet (effect mitigation and adaptation), then energy systems can compete in a balanced market where all of the societal costs for each system is accounted for.

You cannot find a more definitive illustration of the faulty thinking of the modern day liberal than the above post!! It is why you see bumper stickers that refer to "mental disorders" and "Disneyland". As Ive have said on many occassions in these pages, the two questions that the modern day liberal cannot answer:

1) At what cost?

and

2) As compared to what?

Indeed.......there are alot of things I would like to have in my life but simply cannot afford to have. I dont sit around and obsess about it.......its just the way it is. At some point, obtaining those things just becomes impossible due to prohibitive costs. Of course, this doesnt apply to the thinking of a liberal. "Costs" are some kind of minor inconvenience........but not in the real world. Luckily for the majority of us who do weigh the two questions above as part of the decisionmaking process, renewable energy continues to be nothing more than a fringe market. And it will always be a fringe market......of that, there is 100% certainty. And it is a fringe market today ONLY because it is government subsidized. In a free market, it would collapse within 6 months. Only the environmental nutters dont understand that.

Unfortunately for the environmental activists/radicals, most people think like I do, which is why I have said repeatedly in here, that, "The science doesnt matter!!!". The environomentalists have been throwing mega-bombs for decades now and the landscape hasnt really changed in terms of energy production. Why? The answer is quite simple. Because the people who make the laws realize that mandating that electricity costs double...........based on a hail mary pass theory.........gets your ass voted out permanently. When people like Obama publically state that as if it is a fait-accompli in terms of policy, its nothing more than a dog bone for the true believers who say to themselves, "This guy gets my vote.....he gets it!!!". Absolute fools.........of course Obama knows its not happening. Lip service is golden however to obtain votes from the voting block of the eternal dreamers.


"Emmission standards" do one thing very effectively: they make people poorer and cause people to become unemployed and have exceedingly little effect on the environment. Energy companies are always going to pass on the cost of regulations/taxes to the consumers. Socialists like Obama believes that to be evil and seeks to destroy the capitalistic system, but attempts to do so just makes more people poorer. Doesnt matter to him because the "cause is noble". Thankfully, The House is comfortably red until at least 2020 ( redistricting is magical!!!) and no significant environmental legislation is coming anytime soon. Nor should it.........there are over two million people working in the coal industry. The environmentalist's attitude towards them? "FUCK YOU!!!"...........


Well.............fuck them

 

[Trakar]

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

"Suppress" development? You mean "make conform to appropriate emission control standards?" If we make coal, oil and gas cover the costs of dealing with the emissions created as they are introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet (effect mitigation and adaptation), then energy systems can compete in a balanced market where all of the societal costs for each system is accounted for.

You cannot find a more definitive illustration of the faulty thinking of the modern day liberal than the above post!!

I consider liberalism as morally bankrupt as conservatism, both largely corporatist stooge ideologies.

1) At what cost?
and
2) As compared to what?

A lot cheaper than the damages that the emissions from last couple hundred years of coal and oil have already cost us, and are going to continue to cost us, for at least another few centuries.

As compared to a situation where we all take responsibility for our actions and deal with the consequences with reasoned maturity.

 

[Dubya]

NEW WIND CAPACITY = 6519 megawatts



Sounds great.

Until you examine this:

6519 megawatts is rediculously small....but of greater concern is that no energy source seems to be growing at a terribly large rate.

LMAO.....but one of these jackasses will post up a story in a few days about how wind power is growing at 150%!!!!! I will admit, it does play to a certain audience.........the uninformed, of course.

Their delusional headline, "Wind Power Beating Natural Gas in US," is indicative of how dangerous a little knowledge can be.

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

What if you only want a little more electricity generation and don't need enough to build a large power plant?

The nature of electricity requires it to be generated as it is used. What if you only want to add 10 MW to an area, are you going to build a power plant a hundred times larger and shut down existing capacity to make it economical?

My best guess is it was a few years ago that I noticed on the EIA website that we had about enough natural gas electricity generating capacity to shut down all coal fired power plants in the USA. I don't wish anyone harm, but coal has some nasty things, like mercury in it. I'm sure I still have relatives in West Virginia making their living digging coal and that area is poor on money, but beautiful beyond belief.

It's been around a week since I posted an article where I believe it was nine states sued the EPA over mercury from power plants. Poor EPA, getting it from both directions! It comes with the job!

 

[skookerasbil]

Trakkar.......you're getting your ass pwned s0n. Time to move on to a new thread.

 

[Samson]

LMAO.....but one of these jackasses will post up a story in a few days about how wind power is growing at 150%!!!!! I will admit, it does play to a certain audience.........the uninformed, of course.

Their delusional headline, "Wind Power Beating Natural Gas in US," is indicative of how dangerous a little knowledge can be.

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

What if you only want a little more electricity generation and don't need enough to build a large power plant?

The nature of electricity requires it to be generated as it is used. What if you only want to add 10 MW to an area, are you going to build a power plant a hundred times larger and shut down existing capacity to make it economical?

My best guess is it was a few years ago that I noticed on the EIA website that we had about enough natural gas electricity generating capacity to shut down all coal fired power plants in the USA. I don't wish anyone harm, but coal has some nasty things, like mercury in it. I'm sure I still have relatives in West Virginia making their living digging coal and that area is poor on money, but beautiful beyond belief.

It's been around a week since I posted an article where I believe it was nine states sued the EPA over mercury from power plants. Poor EPA, getting it from both directions! It comes with the job!

Yes gas is cleaner burning than coal.

Ironically, almost everywhere that coal is found, so are large deposites of natural gas.

Despite the fact it is cleaner (and almost as cheap) as coal, environmentalists insist that the production method, fracking, must be environmentally harmful despite little or no evidence to support the claim.

 

[whitehall]

Only in the fantasy world of wishful thinking liberalism do the words "beating" and "poised to exceed" mean the same thing.

 

[Dubya]

Their delusional headline, "Wind Power Beating Natural Gas in US," is indicative of how dangerous a little knowledge can be.

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

What if you only want a little more electricity generation and don't need enough to build a large power plant?

The nature of electricity requires it to be generated as it is used. What if you only want to add 10 MW to an area, are you going to build a power plant a hundred times larger and shut down existing capacity to make it economical?

My best guess is it was a few years ago that I noticed on the EIA website that we had about enough natural gas electricity generating capacity to shut down all coal fired power plants in the USA. I don't wish anyone harm, but coal has some nasty things, like mercury in it. I'm sure I still have relatives in West Virginia making their living digging coal and that area is poor on money, but beautiful beyond belief.

It's been around a week since I posted an article where I believe it was nine states sued the EPA over mercury from power plants. Poor EPA, getting it from both directions! It comes with the job!

Yes gas is cleaner burning than coal.

Ironically, almost everywhere that coal is found, so are large deposites of natural gas.

Despite the fact it is cleaner (and almost as cheap) as coal, environmentalists insist that the production method, fracking, must be environmentally harmful despite little or no evidence to support the claim.

Natural gas is half the price of coal now for generating electricity.

I wish we could totally eliminate fossil fuels in the near future, but have enough sense to know we can't. I've been around boilers converted to natural gas and it isn't that hard to do. Besides the natural gas produced on land, do you know there are hugh amounts in the oceans next to our coast? The North Slope of Alaska "produces" more natural gas than any state, but you have to be careful with the word produces. Production means getting it to market. They just use a little to heat crude and pump the rest back into the ground.

There are already plans to take that natural gas to those Canadian tar sands. Canada and Venezuela both have the equivalent of all the known oil reserves in the world, locked up in those tar sands. We know how to do the chemistry and use solvents to get them, but it requires building refineries up there. The refineries don't have to be very sophisticated. Venezuela would need natural gas from Bolivia. I doubt Communists would cooperate even amongst themselves.