Greece & Europe & Energy & Russia: Problem(s) Solved. You're Welcome.

[Silhouette]

What I will do is let them imagine what would cost more
Thanks for your imaginary solution.

Since you are pro-oil, obviously, nothing I came up with would suffice. You would shoot down anything. I've been around this block before. If I cite, like I did in the OP, the ease with which a linear solar thermal array can be constructed, you would still insist, somehow, that it's "more expensive to erect and maintain than an oil refinery". If I cite, like I did in the OP the various geothermal resources in Greece which essentially are no more than a pipe in the ground, a building and turbines, with a constant source of 24/7 free energy from heat, you would cite something about "how Greece can't have these eyesores! They're a tourist country!!"

If I cite that the sunshine is free and plentiful in Greece, you will say something about how coal and oil turbines are somehow superior to solar thermal's 300 degree celesius fluid resource...even though they both use heat to create steam to run turbines. Both turbines are exactly the same, do the same exact thing no matter which heat source is running them.
If I suggest a hybrid solar thermal/geothermal plant for Greece to sell power to Germany and France, to cover 23/7/365 power generation, you'll flip a nut and start with ad hominems, bring in a couple other sock puppets/fellow schills to "YELL LOUDER ABOUT HOW I'M WRONG!!" And so on and so on and so on.

That's why I appealed simple to people's logic. You can't spin that. Their heads can figure out that free fuel running the same type of turbines that oil does = a larger profit margin and energy independence. You don't like that word, do you? But what Greece needs right now is what it already has: the means to become a viable economic nation independent of other countries to keep itself afloat.

Screw oil schills on the internet. This thread isn't about them. It's about Greece...Europe's economy and our allies ability to stay independent of Russia and ME countries. A strong independent Europe is ultimately a strong independent America. And it all begins with Greece & European energy. I'm suggesting killing two birds with one stone..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I will do is let them imagine what would cost more
Thanks for your imaginary solution.

Since you are pro-oil, obviously, nothing I came up with would suffice. You would shoot down anything. I've been around this block before. If I cite, like I did in the OP, the ease with which a linear solar thermal array can be constructed, you would still insist, somehow, that it's "more expensive to erect and maintain than an oil refinery". If I cite, like I did in the OP the various geothermal resources in Greece which essentially are no more than a pipe in the ground, a building and turbines, with a constant source of 24/7 free energy from heat, you would cite something about "how Greece can't have these eyesores! They're a tourist country!!"

If I cite that the sunshine is free and plentiful in Greece, you will say something about how coal and oil turbines are somehow superior to solar thermal's 300 degree celesius fluid resource...even though they both use heat to create steam to run turbines. Both turbines are exactly the same, do the same exact thing no matter which heat source is running them.
If I suggest a hybrid solar thermal/geothermal plant for Greece to sell power to Germany and France, to cover 23/7/365 power generation, you'll flip a nut and start with ad hominems, bring in a couple other sock puppets/fellow schills to "YELL LOUDER ABOUT HOW I'M WRONG!!" And so on and so on and so on.

That's why I appealed simple to people's logic. You can't spin that. Their heads can figure out that free fuel running the same type of turbines that oil does = a larger profit margin and energy independence. You don't like that word, do you? But what Greece needs right now is what it already has: the means to become a viable economic nation independent of other countries to keep itself afloat.

Screw oil schills on the internet. This thread isn't about them. It's about Greece...Europe's economy and our allies ability to stay independent of Russia and ME countries. A strong independent Europe is ultimately a strong independent America. And it all begins with Greece & European energy. I'm suggesting killing two birds with one stone..

Since you are pro-oil,

I'm pro-reliable energy at an affordable cost.
If oil leads to reliable energy at $X per MWH and geothermal costs $2X per MWH, I'm going to favor oil.

If I cite, like I did in the OP, the ease with which a linear solar thermal array can be constructed

I'm glad they're easy to build. If they provide energy only 40% of the time, at 3 times the cost and they wear out in 20 years, you can count me as voting against spending tax dollars to buy or subsidize them. If you feel you can somehow save the planet or save some money building one, I'm all for your freedom to build it with your own money.

If I cite, like I did in the OP the various geothermal resources in Greece which essentially are no more than a pipe in the ground, a building and turbines, with a constant source of 24/7 free energy from heat, you would cite something about...

I would cite my belief that Greece should build what will make money for them.
If you want to invest your retirement funds in the project, I'll be happy to clap you on the shoulder and wish you good luck. Based on Greek government idiocy, I believe they'd take twice as long to build it at triple the cost with half the final output.

Their heads can figure out that free fuel running the same type of turbines that oil does = a larger profit margin and energy independence.

Unless you just invented this technology, it's been out there for a while now. Why haven't they already done it? Are they stupid? Why does anyone still use oil? Assuming your idea is so brilliant.

Screw oil schills on the internet.

And screw people who use oil while screaming it is killing the planet.

 

[Andylusion]

What I will do is let them imagine what would cost more
Thanks for your imaginary solution.

Since you are pro-oil, obviously, nothing I came up with would suffice. You would shoot down anything. I've been around this block before. If I cite, like I did in the OP, the ease with which a linear solar thermal array can be constructed, you would still insist, somehow, that it's "more expensive to erect and maintain than an oil refinery". If I cite, like I did in the OP the various geothermal resources in Greece which essentially are no more than a pipe in the ground, a building and turbines, with a constant source of 24/7 free energy from heat, you would cite something about "how Greece can't have these eyesores! They're a tourist country!!"

If I cite that the sunshine is free and plentiful in Greece, you will say something about how coal and oil turbines are somehow superior to solar thermal's 300 degree celesius fluid resource...even though they both use heat to create steam to run turbines. Both turbines are exactly the same, do the same exact thing no matter which heat source is running them.
If I suggest a hybrid solar thermal/geothermal plant for Greece to sell power to Germany and France, to cover 23/7/365 power generation, you'll flip a nut and start with ad hominems, bring in a couple other sock puppets/fellow schills to "YELL LOUDER ABOUT HOW I'M WRONG!!" And so on and so on and so on.

That's why I appealed simple to people's logic. You can't spin that. Their heads can figure out that free fuel running the same type of turbines that oil does = a larger profit margin and energy independence. You don't like that word, do you? But what Greece needs right now is what it already has: the means to become a viable economic nation independent of other countries to keep itself afloat.

Screw oil schills on the internet. This thread isn't about them. It's about Greece...Europe's economy and our allies ability to stay independent of Russia and ME countries. A strong independent Europe is ultimately a strong independent America. And it all begins with Greece & European energy. I'm suggesting killing two birds with one stone..

The UK was struck by fiscal difficulty, when one of their bond sales failed.

Wisely they started cutting spending in accordance with the reality of their available funds.

One of the things they cut, was subsidies for green energy. Almost instantly all growth of the green energy sector completely froze.

If these green energy sources were all so economically practical, then they wouldn't need subsidies.

Green Energy, thus far, is a net loss overall.

While Geothermal is nifty is some aspects, the fact is they do cause earthquakes. The the explicit purpose of pumping water into the ground, where it is hot enough to boil, it's hard to imagine how one couldn't grasp this concept.

Then the question becomes, how large of a risk are you going to take, to get how much power?

If you add up all the name plate power capacity of all the Geothermal power plants across the entire United States combined, you get a grand total of 3.3 Gigwatts.

Here in Ohio, we have a single coal fired power plant, which produces almost as much power by itself, as all the Geothermal plants in the country. Additionally, it only cost $650 Million.

Comparatively, California signed a deal to add another Geothermal plant for $700 Million. Power output? 30 MW.

If you think Greece can afford that much cost, to add so little power, when they are already broke..... You are crazy.

 

[Silhouette]

Enter....the choir. Exactly as I predicted in post #21.

Try not to be so predictable OK payroll schills?

Nuclear power is the most heavily subsidized of any power company. The only thing a SOLAR THERMAL LINEAR power array or GEOTHERMAL would need is startup. Which is VASTLY cheaper than pumping, refining, transporting, burning, waste disposal and pollution mitigation of oil doing the same thing (turning a steam engine using heat energy) that harnessed sunshine (free always, foerver) and harnessed geothermal (free always, forever) fuels.

Even if solar thermal arrays were as cumulatively-expensive as oil extraction etc. etc. etc. pound for pound in building facilities to generate steam (remember, that's all we're talking about since oil, geothermal and linear solar thermal all do the same thing), the FUEL COSTS are not even in the same ballpark..

Let's see YOUR figures on "the price of oil fuel to run steam turbines over the next 30 years" (including military expenses to keep our straws in the ME oil fields) vs "the price of sunshine or geothermal volcanic heat vents as fuel over the next 30 years"..

Oil = ASTRONOMICALLY EXPENSIVE FUEL SOURCE

Geothermal Vents or Solar Radiation = FREE, FOREVER.

der...um....duh... gee I wonder which one Greece could really profit off of over the long haul, even if the facilities for the geothermal and linear solar thermal steam plants had to be made out of solid gold?....

Don't lump all alternative technologies that you fear will compete with your ME oil monopolies "Green energy"....disparaging the ones you really fear by association with the ones you can show don't work that well..

Each one is green that doesn't use fossil fuels or uraniaum, but the are so different from each other individually as to performance and reliability so that you might as well lump all hooved animals together and call them all "zebras".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Enter....the choir. Exactly as I predicted in post #21.

Try not to be so predictable OK payroll schills?

Nuclear power is the most heavily subsidized of any power company. The only thing a SOLAR THERMAL LINEAR power array or GEOTHERMAL would need is startup. Which is VASTLY cheaper than pumping, refining, transporting, burning, waste disposal and pollution mitigation of oil doing the same thing (turning a steam engine using heat energy) that harnessed sunshine (free always, foerver) and harnessed geothermal (free always, forever) fuels.

Even if solar thermal arrays were as cumulatively-expensive as oil extraction etc. etc. etc. pound for pound in building facilities to generate steam (remember, that's all we're talking about since oil, geothermal and linear solar thermal all do the same thing), the FUEL COSTS are not even in the same ballpark..

Let's see YOUR figures on "the price of oil fuel to run steam turbines over the next 30 years" (including military expenses to keep our straws in the ME oil fields) vs "the price of sunshine or geothermal volcanic heat vents as fuel over the next 30 years"..

Oil = ASTRONOMICALLY EXPENSIVE FUEL SOURCE

Geothermal Vents or Solar Radiation = FREE, FOREVER.

der...um....duh... gee I wonder which one Greece could really profit off of over the long haul, even if the facilities for the geothermal and linear solar thermal steam plants had to be made out of solid gold?....

Don't lump all alternative technologies that you fear will compete with your ME oil monopolies "Green energy"....disparaging the ones you really fear by association with the ones you can show don't work that well..

Each one is green that doesn't use fossil fuels or uraniaum, but the are so different from each other individually as to performance and reliability so that you might as well lump all hooved animals together and call them all "zebras".

Nuclear power is the most heavily subsidized of any power company.

I don't believe that for a second, but at least it's reliable and releases no CO2.
Which is the most important thing, according to the greens.
Which is why it's so funny that they don't support nuclear.

Let's see YOUR figures on "the price of oil fuel to run steam turbines over the next 30 years"

You know geothermal is cheaper, so your figures must already include the fuel costs.
So post them already.

 

[Silhouette]

It’s interesting, though, that we rarely hear free market cheerleaders criticize nuclear power for receiving even greater government support.
This is an industry that has had 60 years to mature, to wean itself from a cornucopia of government-funded production credits, tax breaks, loan guarantees, risk mitigation schemes and other incentives, not to mention hundreds of millions in “free” research conducted at the nation’s colleges and universities. Arguably, nuclear power has been one of the most heavily-subsidized and heavily-regulated industries of the last half-century.
And if anything, government has doubled-down in recent years, presumably in an effort to kickstart the moribund industry.
In 2005, Congress passed a notoriously pork-laden energy bill that proffered fresh goodies for new nuclear plants, about $18.5 billion in new tax credits, loan guarantees and construction insurance. Where s the Free Market for Nuclear Power - The Texas Observer

Nuclear power is the welfare child of energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists did a paper called "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies". On page 6 we find but one of hundreds of citations of hidden expenses of nuclear power in the exhaustive 146 page research paper: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ts/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Fuel. The industry continues to receive a special depletion allowance for uranium mining equal to 22 percent of the ore’s market value, and its deductions are allowed to exceed the gross investment in a given mine. In addition, uranium mining on public lands is governed by the antiquated Mining Law of 1872, which allows valuable ore to be taken with no royalties paid to taxpayers. Although no relevant data have been collected on the approximately 4,000 mines from which uranium has been extracted in the past, environmental remediation costs at some U.S. uranium milling sites actually exceeded the market value of the ore extracted.

Compared to sunshine. Sunshine is solar radiation, which, like the radiation harnessed in nuclear plants, merely heats water to steam in order to run steam turbines. The techonology is identical. With linear solar thermal steam, the fuel is free forever and never harms the environment. So solar thermal linear arrays can sell their power at unbelievable profit. Here's how nuclear power works. Both solar thermal linear and nuclear simply use radiation to boil water to run turbines that produce electric current. Oil does the same. But oil isn't free fuel either and comes with ungodly environmental costs as well as national security costs:

So without quoting a single $figure that you've asked for, which you would manipulate and use your industry-gathered "proof" to refute, I've just demonstrated how linear solar thermal steam is cheaper. Both use the same type of technology to create electricity. One does so with ungodly mining refining fuel costs, waste and environmental damage of which they still don't have a total cumulative $figure for. The other does so for free. No mining, no refining, no transportation, no carbon load in the atmosphere or groundwater, but still runs the old reliable steam turbine just the same.

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone else want to weigh in on why Greece can't make money selling electricity to France and Germany using the solar nuclear reactor and geothermal heat to run steam turbines just like oil, coal and (uraniam) nuclear do?

 

[Silhouette]

Green Energy, thus far, is a net loss overall....1. While Geothermal is nifty is some aspects, the fact is they do cause earthquakes. The the explicit purpose of pumping water into the ground, where it is hot enough to boil, it's hard to imagine how one couldn't grasp this concept...2. Then the question becomes, how large of a risk are you going to take, to get how much power?...If you add up all the name plate power capacity of all the Geothermal power plants across the entire United States combined, you get a grand total of 3.3 Gigwatts....3. Here in Ohio, we have a single coal fired power plant, which produces almost as much power by itself, as all the Geothermal plants in the country. Additionally, it only cost $650 Million....Comparatively, California signed a deal to add another Geothermal plant for $700 Million. Power output? 30 MW....4. If you think Greece can afford that much cost, to add so little power, when they are already broke..... You are crazy.

1. Pumping water into hot rock in extremely localized areas doesn't cause whole fault lines to shift. You cannot prove a causal agent like that. What an absurd claim! However, blasting away at entire zones of rock strata like is done in fracking is causing swarms of earthquakes with bullseyes right around fracking operations, consistenly. Yet I don't see you complaining about that. You must like the oil industry more than geothermal. Perhaps you consider them "the enemy" and would make up something like "they cause earthquakes and are expensive" to drive would-be investors away?

2. Yes, I'm sure it's very risky (compared to fracking and destroying whole layers of the earth with a toxic sludge, just under aquifers using brittle well casings that will crack with the earthquakes produced by fracking; causing capillary seepage upwards of the toxic stew into the aquifers above). Putting a straw in the ground that pumps fresh water on to hot rock and then recovering that hot water doesn't hurt a damn thing, and it's easy too. No chemical stew needed to extract it, like fracking.

3. Well, people can build gold-plated steam turbines and platinum-lined floors with rubies and emeralds studded in the walls but the simple fact is that geothermal and linear solar thermal plants should be cheap snap to set up. If their costs are artificially elevated to "make them look too pricey for the returns"...I again would suspect BigOil doing so, just like they engineered-to fail those huge circular jokes of solar thermal arrays..with flat mirrors placed 1/2 a mile away from this super high elevated tower that got up to under 100c. Wow! Meanwhile the builders of that joke knew at the time that the parabolic mirror, linear arrays got quickly up to 300 degrees c and cost a fraction of the money to build. They're even made modular so they snap together like a lego set. Watch the video in the OP.

4. See #1, #2 & #3...

 

[Andylusion]

Anyone else want to weigh in on why Greece can't make money selling electricity to France and Germany using the solar nuclear reactor and geothermal heat to run steam turbines just like oil, coal and (uraniam) nuclear do?

You are a fruit. We just listed specific numbers, specific data, showing why, and here you are "derp anyone want to weight in?"

Did the numbers change at all? No? Then what more is there to say.

 

[Andylusion]

Green Energy, thus far, is a net loss overall....1. While Geothermal is nifty is some aspects, the fact is they do cause earthquakes. The the explicit purpose of pumping water into the ground, where it is hot enough to boil, it's hard to imagine how one couldn't grasp this concept...2. Then the question becomes, how large of a risk are you going to take, to get how much power?...If you add up all the name plate power capacity of all the Geothermal power plants across the entire United States combined, you get a grand total of 3.3 Gigwatts....3. Here in Ohio, we have a single coal fired power plant, which produces almost as much power by itself, as all the Geothermal plants in the country. Additionally, it only cost $650 Million....Comparatively, California signed a deal to add another Geothermal plant for $700 Million. Power output? 30 MW....4. If you think Greece can afford that much cost, to add so little power, when they are already broke..... You are crazy.

1. Pumping water into hot rock in extremely localized areas doesn't cause whole fault lines to shift. You cannot prove a causal agent like that. What an absurd claim! However, blasting away at entire zones of rock strata like is done in fracking is causing swarms of earthquakes with bullseyes right around fracking operations, consistenly. Yet I don't see you complaining about that. You must like the oil industry more than geothermal. Perhaps you consider them "the enemy" and would make up something like "they cause earthquakes and are expensive" to drive would-be investors away?

2. Yes, I'm sure it's very risky (compared to fracking and destroying whole layers of the earth with a toxic sludge, just under aquifers using brittle well casings that will crack with the earthquakes produced by fracking; causing capillary seepage upwards of the toxic stew into the aquifers above). Putting a straw in the ground that pumps fresh water on to hot rock and then recovering that hot water doesn't hurt a damn thing, and it's easy too. No chemical stew needed to extract it, like fracking.

3. Well, people can build gold-plated steam turbines and platinum-lined floors with rubies and emeralds studded in the walls but the simple fact is that geothermal and linear solar thermal plants should be cheap snap to set up. If their costs are artificially elevated to "make them look too pricey for the returns"...I again would suspect BigOil doing so, just like they engineered-to fail those huge circular jokes of solar thermal arrays..with flat mirrors placed 1/2 a mile away from this super high elevated tower that got up to under 100c. Wow! Meanwhile the builders of that joke knew at the time that the parabolic mirror, linear arrays got quickly up to 300 degrees c and cost a fraction of the money to build. They're even made modular so they snap together like a lego set. Watch the video in the OP.

4. See #1, #2 & #3...

Many people have complained about that. One difference is, once the fracking is done, the oil pumped out no longer causes quakes.

Geothermal, by it's nature, requires water to be continuously pumped into super hot rock formations, for the express intention of boiling it, which causes steam, which causes quakes.

Now, I'm not against that, stupid....... but some are. It's a fact that geothermal plants around the globe, have been shut down due to quakes, and many people don't want them. Some due.

If the Greeks are good with it... fine! Let them do it.

That still doesn't change the fact that Geothermal costs tons more money, for tons less power. If the Geo Metro is $250,000, and the Ford Excursion is $8,000..... what mindless idiot, would buy the Metro, over the Excursion?

Well.... it would be the left-wing idiot that would do that, because it's not his money he's spending on it, but rather the tax payers.

Do you want to spend $700 Million on a Geothermal plant that makes 30 MWs.... or $620 Million a Coal power plant that makes 2 GWs? Smart people would say "the one that produces more, for a lower price". Some idiot left-winger, getting paid by government funded green-energy industry..... "clearly the expensive one the produces little... that's our plan."

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone else want to weigh in on why Greece can't make money selling electricity to France and Germany using the solar nuclear reactor and geothermal heat to run steam turbines just like oil, coal and (uraniam) nuclear do?

You are a fruit. We just listed specific numbers, specific data, showing why, and here you are "derp anyone want to weight in?"

Did the numbers change at all? No? Then what more is there to say.

Did you hear about the linear solar thermal desalination slated to open in California? They announced it a couple of days ago. Seems they figured out that cheap concave mirrors can superheat water quickly and for free...no fuel costs ever...and they're going to use it to boil brackish or seawater and distil it for agricultural use. Guess what else they can do with boiling water or higher temp fluids and heat exchangers? That's right, they can run steam turbines with free fuel. You can go on until the cows come home but unless you're going to argue that coal, oil or uranium mining and fuels are free forever, you've lost this argument.

Free fuel to run steam turbines or expensive fuel to run steam turbines...gee, which one would result in more profits? That's a toughy...here...let me dust off my kindergarten math book and double-check..