10/2020: Solar is now ‘Cheapest Electricity in History’, confirms IEA

[Crick]

/----/ And adding more EVs with these conditions is idiotic. Time to bring back nuclear power plants.

I also support nuclear power, but that will take decades.

California could do more to push hydrogen combustion and hydrogen fuel cell by establishing the infrastruture to support them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The blackouts in California are due to a increased temperatures statewide. The increased demand is almost all from air conditioners. Solar power does wane in the afternoon but the state has also experienced dramatic losses in hydroelectric capacity and breakdowns in gas fired plants from the increased demand created by higher temperatures.

Why California has blackouts: A look at the power grid

Extreme temperatures have sent electric demand on the grid to record levels.

abcnews.go.com

The blackouts in California are due to a increased temperatures statewide. The increased demand is almost all from air conditioners.

Sounds like they need more reliable power, not more intermittent power.
How many nuke plants do they have? How many more are they building?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I also support nuclear power, but that will take decades.

California could do more to push hydrogen combustion and hydrogen fuel cell by establishing the infrastruture to support them.

Why would you waste power to generate hydrogen when you could just increase use of natural gas?
Is it because fighting CO2 is a religion, not a science?

 

[Crick]

Why would you waste power to generate hydrogen when you could just increase use of natural gas?
Is it because fighting CO2 is a religion, not a science?

There has been a development in the past few months of a solar PV panel that will directly electrolyze water, turning it into hydrogen and oxygen.; all with sunshine.

Todd, your arguments have been going down hill for a while now. That you should bring up the religion nonsense is really disappointing. There was a time when you talked science. Is it because the science doesn't support the position you want to take? Have you tried religion? They might be able to help and they only require faith.

 

[jc456]

The blackouts in California are due to a increased temperatures statewide.

what increased temperatures statewide? you've lost your fking mind, California ain't any warmer than it ever was.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There has been a development in the past few months of a solar PV panel that will directly electrolyze water, turning it into hydrogen and oxygen.; all with sunshine.

Todd, your arguments have been going down hill for a while now. That you should bring up the religion nonsense is really disappointing. There was a time when you talked science. Is it because the science doesn't support the position you want to take? Have you tried religion? They might be able to help and they only require faith.

There has been a development in the past few months of a solar PV panel that will directly electrolyze water, turning it into hydrogen and oxygen.; all with sunshine.

Right. With efficiency around 30%. And then you have to store the hydrogen.
Then you have to get it to the fuel cell. Efficiency maybe 60%.

So you've turned 100 kilowatts of solar output into maybe 18 kilowatts of hydrogen output.
How many should we order?

That you should bring up the religion nonsense is really disappointing.

The religion of AGW is disappointing.

Is it because the science doesn't support the position you want to take?

Economics doesn't support the green position.

 

[Crick]

There has been a development in the past few months of a solar PV panel that will directly electrolyze water, turning it into hydrogen and oxygen.; all with sunshine.

Right. With efficiency around 30%. And then you have to store the hydrogen.
Then you have to get it to the fuel cell. Efficiency maybe 60%.

Right, and then you have to store the natural gas and get it to the power plant.
Right, and then you have to store the coal and get it to the power plant.
Right, and then you have to store the gasoline and get it to the motor vehicle.
Right...

So you've turned 100 kilowatts of solar output into maybe 18 kilowatts of hydrogen output.
How many should we order?

Given that it costs ZERO fuel to create it, all we want. And given that your method consumes every molecule of fuel it sees, I think my method will come out in the long run (like, after two days).

That you should bring up the religion nonsense is really disappointing.

The religion of AGW is disappointing.

There is no religion of AGW as it is completely based on extrememly well-established science. Your position, however, seems to be based on unsupported fearmongering and paranoid jingoism. That sounds a lot more like a religion to me.

Is it because the science doesn't support the position you want to take?

Economics doesn't support the green position.

You're talking apples and oranges. Just because you don't like the solutions proposed doesn't allow you to claim the problem doesn't exist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, and then you have to store the natural gas and get it to the power plant.
Right, and then you have to store the coal and get it to the power plant.
Right, and then you have to store the gasoline and get it to the motor vehicle.
Right...

Given that it costs ZERO fuel to create it, all we want. And given that your method consumes every molecule of fuel it sees, I think my method will come out in the long run (like, after two days).

There is no religion of AGW as it is completely based on extrememly well-established science. Your position, however, seems to be based on unsupported fearmongering and paranoid jingoism. That sounds a lot more like a religion to me.

You're talking apples and oranges. Just because you don't like the solutions proposed doesn't allow you to claim the problem doesn't exist.

Right, and then you have to store the natural gas and get it to the power plant.
Right, and then you have to store the coal and get it to the power plant.
Right, and then you have to store the gasoline and get it to the motor vehicle.
Right...

All are well established and none involved hydrogen embrittlement.
And they all start with lots of energy included.

Given that it costs ZERO fuel to create it, all we want.

ZERO fuel, but lots and lots of dollars.

And given that your method consumes every molecule of fuel it sees,

Reliable, consistent power.

I think my method will come out in the long run (like, after two days).

You using math or science in that "thought"?

There is no religion of AGW

Funniest thing I've heard all week!

Your position, however, seems to be based on unsupported fearmongering

My fear of green idiocy is well supported.

You're talking apples and oranges. Just because you don't like the solutions proposed doesn't allow you to claim the problem doesn't exist.

If the green solutions weren't all so awful, we could join in solving the "problem".

 

[Crick]

Right, and then you have to store the natural gas and get it to the power plant.
Right, and then you have to store the coal and get it to the power plant.
Right, and then you have to store the gasoline and get it to the motor vehicle.
Right...

All are well established and none involved hydrogen embrittlement.
And they all start with lots of energy included.

And, again, the problem here is that you give no value whatsoever to energy without GHG emssions while the rest of us do.

Given that it costs ZERO fuel to create it, all we want.

ZERO fuel, but lots and lots of dollars.

No. Factoring the cost of the fuel you will just burn, green hydrogen is a far, far cheaper way to go.

And given that your method consumes every molecule of fuel it sees,

Reliable, consistent power.

Right up until you can't afford more fuel.

I think my method will come out in the long run (like, after two days).

You using math or science in that "thought"?

Both. Why don't you tally up the fuel cost of running your ideally heavy car for a 100,000 miles.

There is no religion of AGW

Your position, however, seems to be based on unsupported fearmongering

My fear of green idiocy is well supported.

The greens are following the science and you are not. That makes you, demonstrably, the idiot.

You're talking apples and oranges. Just because you don't like the solutions proposed doesn't allow you to claim the problem doesn't exist.

If the green solutions weren't all so awful, we could join in solving the "problem".

Precisely what is stopping you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And, again, the problem here is that you give no value whatsoever to energy without GHG emssions while the rest of us do.

No. Factoring the cost of the fuel you will just burn, green hydrogen is a far, far cheaper way to go.

Right up until you can't afford more fuel.

Both. Why don't you tally up the fuel cost of running your ideally heavy car for a 100,000 miles.

The greens are following the science and you are not. That makes you, demonstrably, the idiot.

Precisely what is stopping you?

And, again, the problem here is that you give no value whatsoever to energy without GHG emssions while the rest of us do.

Greens give no value to nuclear GHG-free energy.
Unreliable energy has less value than reliable energy.

Factoring the cost of the fuel you will just burn, green hydrogen is a far, far cheaper way to go.

Show me some evidence.

Right up until you can't afford more fuel.

Power that isn't there isn't more affordable.

Why don't you tally up the fuel cost of running your ideally heavy car for a 100,000 miles.

How much does it cost to charge your car at home with your solar panels when
you come home after work to plug it in?

The greens are following the science and you are not

AOCs "green new deal" idiocy had little science or economics to back it up.
Neither does the irrational green fear of nuclear.

Precisely what is stopping you?

What is stopping me from working with green idiots?

 

[Crick]

And, again, the problem here is that you give no value whatsoever to energy without GHG emssions while the rest of us do.
Greens give no value to nuclear GHG-free energy.

I do. And have you looked at what it will cost? Nuclear is the most expensive energy option we've got. I thought that was a big concern of yours.

Unreliable energy has less value than reliable energy.

There are several factors that go into its value. Reliability is one of them.

Factoring the cost of the fuel you will just burn, green hydrogen is a far, far cheaper way to go.

Show me some evidence.

No fuel costs <<< Pure fuel costs. And I even used some math.

Right up until you can't afford more fuel.

Power that isn't there isn't more affordable.

Fossil fuel plants break down, seemingly more often under heavy load. And that fuel will not be there forever. There is actually a limit to what people can or will pay for electricity.

Why don't you tally up the fuel cost of running your ideally heavy car for a 100,000 miles.

How much does it cost to charge your car at home with your solar panels when
you come home after work to plug it in?

Nothing to charge from solar panels.

The greens are following the science and you are not

AOCs "green new deal" idiocy had little science or economics to back it up.
Neither does the irrational green fear of nuclear.

You know what I'm talking about but I guess you don't want to go near any real science on this issue.

What is stopping me from working with green idiots?

What is stopping you from joining in and helping to solve our problems?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I do. And have you looked at what it will cost? Nuclear is the most expensive energy option we've got. I thought that was a big concern of yours.

There are several factors that go into its value. Reliability is one of them.

No fuel costs <<< Pure fuel costs. And I even used some math.

Fossil fuel plants break down, seemingly more often under heavy load. And that fuel will not be there forever. There is actually a limit to what people can or will pay for electricity.

Nothing to charge from solar panels.

You know what I'm talking about but I guess you don't want to go near any real science on this issue.

What is stopping you from joining in and helping to solve our problems?

Nuclear is the most expensive energy option we've got.

If you standardize the design and limit the endless lawsuits, they'd be a lot cheaper.

There are several factors that go into its value. Reliability is one of them.

What is the value of solar power at midnight? Would you feel comfortable
relying on solar to power a grandchild's respirator?

No fuel costs <<< Pure fuel costs. And I even used some math.

Turning 100 kW of solar into ~18 kW of hydrogen power looks pretty expensive.

Fossil fuel plants break down, seemingly more often under heavy load

Loads are heavier when you reduce the number of fossil fuel and nuclear plants and
replace them with unreliable wind and solar.

Nothing to charge from solar panels.

Especially after work when you have few or no hours of sunlight left. LOL!

You know what I'm talking about but I guess you don't want to go near any real science on this issue.

When it comes to getting near any real science or economics, the GND and AOC aren't even in the same time zone.

What is stopping you from joining in and helping to solve our problems?

I told you, more fracking and more nukes, but the green idiots don't want to join in with me.

 

[Crick]

Nuclear is the most expensive energy option we've got.

If you standardize the design and limit the endless lawsuits, they'd be a lot cheaper.

If wishes were fishes...

There are several factors that go into its value. Reliability is one of them.

What is the value of solar power at midnight? Would you feel comfortable
relying on solar to power a grandchild's respirator?

No and no one is. But fuck you anyway Todd.

No fuel costs <<< Pure fuel costs. And I even used some math.

Turning 100 kW of solar into ~18 kW of hydrogen power looks pretty expensive.

Not with free fuel.

Fossil fuel plants break down, seemingly more often under heavy load

Loads are heavier when you reduce the number of fossil fuel and nuclear plants and
replace them with unreliable wind and solar.

I'm certain the operators know what their plant capacities are. I suspect they're just not as RELIABLE as some might like.

Nothing to charge from solar panels.

Especially after work when you have few or no hours of sunlight left. LOL!

Nope. Its the free fuel.

You know what I'm talking about but I guess you don't want to go near any real science on this issue.

When it comes to getting near any real science or economics, the GND and AOC aren't even in the same time zone.

You aren't talking to AOC Todd. You're talking to me. And we're not talking about the Green New Deal. So you STILL appear to be doing your best to avoid talking about the actual science of the actual problem.

What is stopping you from joining in and helping to solve our problems?

I told you, more fracking and more nukes, but the green idiots don't want to join in with me.

Because you're not working on the actual problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If wishes were fishes...

No and no one is. But fuck you anyway Todd.

Not with free fuel.

I'm certain the operators know what their plant capacities are. I suspect they're just not as RELIABLE as some might like.

Nope. Its the free fuel.

You aren't talking to AOC Todd. You're talking to me. And we're not talking about the Green New Deal. So you STILL appear to be doing your best to avoid talking about the actual science of the actual problem.

Because you're not working on the actual problem.

No and no one is.

You never said how much that solar is worth at midnight.

But fuck you anyway Todd.

You can use your grandkids but I can't? Fuck you too.

Not with free fuel.

You keep saying it's free. But now you have to install at least 5 times as much
to get the same hydrogen power as you had with just the panels. Your economics, and physics
knowledge rivals AOC's.

Nope. Its the free fuel.

You're such a moron.
If the installation and equipment costs you $40K,
how long does it take you to break even?

Because you're not working on the actual problem.

Is the problem too much CO2? Then fracking and nuclear will be a large part of the solution.
If the problem is green idiocy, then we're doomed.

 

[Crick]

Is the problem too much CO2? Then fracking and nuclear will be a large part of the solution.
If the problem is green idiocy, then we're doomed.

How does fracking reduce CO2 emissions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does fracking reduce CO2 emissions?

How did it already reduce CO2 emissions?

 

[Crick]

How did it already reduce CO2 emissions?

Fracking produces oil and gas. I don't mind getting oil cheaply as we transition off, but I doubt that's what you actually have in mind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fracking produces oil and gas. I don't mind getting oil cheaply as we transition off, but I doubt that's what you actually have in mind.

Fracking to get natural gas to replace coal and to supply
more power to cover the massive shortfalls of unreliable solar and wind.

We talked about this before. Did you forget?

 

[Crick]

Fracking to get natural gas to replace coal and to supply
more power to cover the massive shortfalls of unreliable solar and wind.

We talked about this before. Did you forget?

This makes me wonder if there would be more support for alternative energy technologies if the only alternative was coal. Haven't you heard of Clean Coal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This makes me wonder if there would be more support for alternative energy technologies if the only alternative was coal. Haven't you heard of Clean Coal?

Clean coal is perfectly fine.
But green idiots who aren't rational about nat gas or nuclear would stroke out over coal.
So you forgot already?