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

[otto105]

And the most unreliable.

I could cobble together a go-cart and probably get it up to 40 mph, but I'm damned sure not gonna take the thing out on the freeway.

You drive your house on the freeway.

 

[otto105]

hahahahah, Science? Bull Shit! Carbon footprint? Last I checked it CO2, not carbon? The author of this editorial does not know the difference between elements and compounds.

Then the next glaring error is the CO2 per kwh, it is all over the board! The amount of CO2 should almost, exactly the same for each wind turbine, each country, each year, not wildly different.

The chart is meaningless, is it carbon or CO2, the author makes no distinction.
How can wind turbines produce 500% more CO2 than another?

Crick, you failed with your slobbering lies.

So, I ask a third time, how many wind turbines should we consider, being built on a daily basis, so that we can come up with how much CO2 is emitted everyday.

I say 25 a day, which is world wide estimate based on the amount of wind turbines installed

After a wi e turbine or solar panel is built, how much CO2 does it emit?

 

[elektra]

After a wi e turbine or solar panel is built, how much CO2 does it emit?

After a wind turbine is built, another is being built to help, and then another, then another. It is a forever manufacturing problem.

Wind turbine and Solar panels are forever being manufactured so there is never a time when there will be no C02 emissions into the atmosphere from Wind and Solar

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Did you get to the real story about the senator and the subsidies to Big Oil ?

Why in earth do you think all of the big three auto companies are going to stop making gasoline vehicles so soon. It won't be feasible to run vehicles in gasoline anymore. It will be cost prohibitive long before 2052.

Big 3 getting rid of ICE cars? I guess you didnt get the memo?

Reasons why EVs are not selling well include123:

• EVs are still too expensive for most people, even with government incentives.
• Range anxiety.
• Time required to charge.
• Power outage and grid concerns.
• Lack of servicers for repairs and maintenance.
• Inadequate performance in extreme temperatures.

There are also real supply chain issues reverberating across the entire automotive industry that have made it difficult to meet demand4.
Learn more:
1. usatoday.com2. usatoday.com3. jalopnik.com4. greenbiz.com+1 more

 

[elektra]

Big 3 getting rid of ICE cars? I guess you didnt get the memo?

Reasons why EVs are not selling well include123:

• EVs are still too expensive for most people, even with government incentives.
• Range anxiety.
• Time required to charge.
• Power outage and grid concerns.
• Lack of servicers for repairs and maintenance.
• Inadequate performance in extreme temperatures.

There are also real supply chain issues reverberating across the entire automotive industry that have made it difficult to meet demand4.
Learn more:
1. usatoday.com2. usatoday.com3. jalopnik.com4. greenbiz.com+1 more

The big 3 ran out of lithium! Elon Musk said as much a long time ago
A top lithium expert agrees with Elon Musk that there’s not enough of the crucial metal to meet booming demand

 

[Crick]

The big 3 ran out of lithium! Elon Musk said as much a long time ago
A top lithium expert agrees with Elon Musk that there’s not enough of the crucial metal to meet booming demand

Then its good they've developed batteries that don't use any of it and are already selling cars equipped with them.

Electric Cars Powered By Sodium Ion Batteries Go On Sale In China - CleanTechnica

Two electric car models powered by sodium ion batteries went into production in China in late December. It this the start of a trend?

cleantechnica.com

 

[elektra]

Then its good they've developed batteries that don't use any of it and are already selling cars equipped with them.

Electric Cars Powered By Sodium Ion Batteries Go On Sale In China - CleanTechnica

Two electric car models powered by sodium ion batteries went into production in China in late December. It this the start of a trend?

cleantechnica.com

your article says no cars with sodium batteries have been sold yet,

another lie by Crick

How many more lies, crick?

 

[Crick]

your article says no cars with sodium batteries have been sold yet,

another lie by Crick

How many more lies, crick?

The article's title reads "

Electric Cars Powered By Sodium Ion Batteries Go On Sale In China"​

and the text says they will be available the day after tomorrow. So go **** yourself. If you'd like to talk about lies we can have at it.

 

[elektra]

The article's title reads "

Electric Cars Powered By Sodium Ion Batteries Go On Sale In China"​

and the text says they will be available the day after tomorrow. So go **** yourself. If you'd like to talk about lies we can have at it.

you said they were already sold, you lied crick,

and how about all those posts you keep ignoring

I mean, I dont blame you for ignoring your lies, there is no response you can give, just hope they are all ignored

You should move to Communist China, join the communist party, and then you can have salt powered electric car. You just can not go as far as you could in lithium, but when you run out of lithium you have no choice.

 

[elektra]

FOR POSTER ELEKTRA

What's the carbon footprint of a wind turbine? » Yale Climate Connections

Wind energy is remarkably climate-friendly.

yaleclimateconnections.org

Since you were unwilling to put your money where your mouth was, I've once again been forced to do it for you. Try to remember this one, eh.

View attachment 880762
This chart shows how much carbon dioxide, per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, can be attributed to a wind turbine during its life from cradle to grave. If you’re wondering about those awkward-sounding “grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent,” or “CO2-eq,” that’s simply a unit that includes both carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, such as methane.

You can see that the results vary by country, size of turbine, and onshore versus offshore configuration, but all fall within a range of about five to 26 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour.

To put those numbers in context, consider the two major fossil-fuel sources of electricity in the United States: natural gas and coal. Power plants that burn natural gas are responsible for 437 to 758 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour — far more than even the most carbon-intensive wind turbine listed above. Coal-fired power plants fare even more poorly in comparison to wind, with estimates ranging from 675 to 1,689 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, depending on the exact technology in question.

There’s another crucial difference between fossil fuels and wind turbines. A coal or natural gas plant burns fuel — and releases carbon dioxide — every moment that it runs. By contrast, most of the carbon pollution generated during a wind turbine’s life occurs during manufacturing. Once it’s up and spinning, the turbine generates close to zero pollution.

What’s more, wind turbines often displace older, dirtier sources that supply power to the electricity grid. For example, after a new wind farm connects to the grid, the grid operator may be able to meet electricity demand without firing up a decades-old, highly polluting coal plant. The result? A cleaner, more climate-friendly electricity grid.

In fact, it’s possible to calculate a carbon “payback” time for a wind turbine: the length of time it takes a turbine to produce enough clean electricity to make up for the carbon pollution generated during manufacture. One study put that payback time at seven months — not bad considering the typical 20- to 25-year lifespan of a wind turbine. Bottom line: Wind turbines are far from a joke. For the climate, they’re a deal too good to pass up.

Crick ignored my reply so this is the second reply. Crick did post in this thread after I replied, so let us see what crick has to say about his failed post of his.

hahahahah, Science? Bull Shit! Carbon footprint? Last I checked it CO2, not carbon? The author of this editorial does not know the difference between elements and compounds.

Then the next glaring error is the CO2 per kwh, it is all over the board! The amount of CO2 should almost, exactly the same for each wind turbine, each country, each year, not wildly different.

The chart is meaningless, is it carbon or CO2, the author makes no distinction.
How can wind turbines produce 500% more CO2 than another?

Crick, you failed with your slobbering lies.

So, I ask a third time, how many wind turbines should we consider, being built on a daily basis, so that we can come up with how much CO2 is emitted everyday.

I say 25 a day, which is world wide estimate based on the amount of wind turbines installed

 

[Crick]

Crick ignored my reply so this is the second reply. Crick did post in this thread after I replied, so let us see what crick has to say about his failed post of his.

hahahahah, Science? Bull Shit! Carbon footprint? Last I checked it CO2, not carbon? The author of this editorial does not know the difference between elements and compounds.

Then the next glaring error is the CO2 per kwh, it is all over the board! The amount of CO2 should almost, exactly the same for each wind turbine, each country, each year, not wildly different.

The chart is meaningless, is it carbon or CO2, the author makes no distinction.
How can wind turbines produce 500% more CO2 than another?

Crick, you failed with your slobbering lies.

So, I ask a third time, how many wind turbines should we consider, being built on a daily basis, so that we can come up with how much CO2 is emitted everyday.

I say 25 a day, which is world wide estimate based on the amount of wind turbines installed

God you are pathetic. You had MORE than ample opportunity to come up with your own numbers but dodged, weaved and finally declined. The info I posted was simply the first thing Google gave me on a search. Using the information there that provides the best case for your point of view, we would be comparing 437 to 25.5 gms CO2 equiv per kWh. Over its lifetime, the best fossil fuel source will produce more than 17 TIMES as much CO2 PER KWH as a wind turbine. And looking at these values per kWh completely bypasses your argument about the number of wind turbines to replace a fossil fuel power plant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

FOR POSTER ELEKTRA

What's the carbon footprint of a wind turbine? » Yale Climate Connections

Wind energy is remarkably climate-friendly.

yaleclimateconnections.org

Since you were unwilling to put your money where your mouth was, I've once again been forced to do it for you. Try to remember this one, eh.

View attachment 880762
This chart shows how much carbon dioxide, per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, can be attributed to a wind turbine during its life from cradle to grave. If you’re wondering about those awkward-sounding “grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent,” or “CO2-eq,” that’s simply a unit that includes both carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, such as methane.

You can see that the results vary by country, size of turbine, and onshore versus offshore configuration, but all fall within a range of about five to 26 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour.

To put those numbers in context, consider the two major fossil-fuel sources of electricity in the United States: natural gas and coal. Power plants that burn natural gas are responsible for 437 to 758 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour — far more than even the most carbon-intensive wind turbine listed above. Coal-fired power plants fare even more poorly in comparison to wind, with estimates ranging from 675 to 1,689 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, depending on the exact technology in question.

There’s another crucial difference between fossil fuels and wind turbines. A coal or natural gas plant burns fuel — and releases carbon dioxide — every moment that it runs. By contrast, most of the carbon pollution generated during a wind turbine’s life occurs during manufacturing. Once it’s up and spinning, the turbine generates close to zero pollution.

What’s more, wind turbines often displace older, dirtier sources that supply power to the electricity grid. For example, after a new wind farm connects to the grid, the grid operator may be able to meet electricity demand without firing up a decades-old, highly polluting coal plant. The result? A cleaner, more climate-friendly electricity grid.

In fact, it’s possible to calculate a carbon “payback” time for a wind turbine: the length of time it takes a turbine to produce enough clean electricity to make up for the carbon pollution generated during manufacture. One study put that payback time at seven months — not bad considering the typical 20- to 25-year lifespan of a wind turbine. Bottom line: Wind turbines are far from a joke. For the climate, they’re a deal too good to pass up.

What’s more, wind turbines often displace older, dirtier sources that supply power to the electricity grid. For example, after a new wind farm connects to the grid, the grid operator may be able to meet electricity demand without firing up a decades-old, highly polluting coal plant. The result? A cleaner, more climate-friendly electricity grid.

And if the wind slows down and you need to fire up that old coal plant?
Wait, you demolished that old coal plant? Now what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why in earth do you think all of the big three auto companies are going to stop making gasoline vehicles so soon.

Because of stupid government mandates and regulations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So if energy is going to run out soon, does allowing millions of Illegals (who drive old gas guzzlers) into this country, help or hurt the cause?

Exactly. The quickest, largest reduction we could make to CO2 in the US is to deport 40 million illegal aliens. They produce much less CO2 in their shithole of origin.

 

[elektra]

God you are pathetic. You had MORE than ample opportunity to come up with your own numbers but dodged, weaved and finally declined. The info I posted was simply the first thing Google gave me on a search. Using the information there that provides the best case for your point of view, we would be comparing 437 to 25.5 gms CO2 equiv per kWh. Over its lifetime, the best fossil fuel source will produce more than 17 TIMES as much CO2 PER KWH as a wind turbine. And looking at these values per kWh completely bypasses your argument about the number of wind turbines to replace a fossil fuel power plant.

no, you are the one dodging and ignoring

How many turbines are built each day, is a legitimate question to begin a discussion. You never replied.

I say 30 a day are being built, and that we should calculate CO2 emissions on that number. Do you agree, crick?

 

[elektra]

30 wind turbines are built every day. Each one requiring at least 40 tons of fiberglass.

1200 tons of CO2 is emitted just from the fiberglass production alone. We need to also establish the amount of energy needed. That will be in joules converted into mwh.

17 GJ of power are consumed for every tonne of melted glass.

5666.6666667 mwh of energy is needed every day to just make the fiberglass!

That is 5.6 gwh! How many wind turbines does it take to 5.6 gwh?

Crick

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

30 wind turbines are built every day. Each one requiring at least 40 tons of fiberglass.

1200 tons of CO2 is emitted just from the fiberglass production alone. We need to also establish the amount of energy needed. That will be in joules converted into mwh.

17 GJ of power are consumed for every tonne of melted glass.

5666.6666667 mwh of energy is needed every day to just make the fiberglass!

That is 5.6 gwh! How many wind turbines does it take to 5.6 gwh?

Crick

Logic is not one of the finer points of the Marxists/Demofascists.

 

[Crick]

no, you are the one dodging and ignoring

How many turbines are built each day, is a legitimate question to begin a discussion. You never replied.

I say 30 a day are being built, and that we should calculate CO2 emissions on that number. Do you agree, crick?

It's a free country but since we already have per kWh numbers, it's a waste of time. Do you not understand that?

 

[jc456]

No kismet involved .The solar fields didn't cause that , the overuse of fossil fuels 20 years ago
Lead to the event. Yes , the effects aren't immediate. The evacuation of the barrier islands in Florida that's already occurring are a response to a time when we were using 1/ 3rd. the amount of fossil fuels than we are today. So much worst events will be coming out way until 20 years after we start reducing fossil fuels.consumption ( based on the world's usage , not just US ) . We will eventually learn but it's going to cost us even more than we could imagine. Once you set a firestorm in motion it's hard to put it out.

There’s so much stupid in your post, I have no idea how to reply! But thanks for the laugh

 

[jc456]

It's a free country but since we already have per kWh numbers, it's a waste of time. Do you not understand that?

Still waiting on how solar works at night?