I Never Really Understood The Left's Obsession With Saving The Planet

[Crick]

The manufacturer's estimated lifespan for the 15 MW Vesta turbines is up to 30 years. The weight of coal burned by that 500 MW plant during that time span would equal the mass of 7,500, 15 MW turbines which would produce 112.5 GW for 30 years with no additional fuel. Additionally, at today's rates ($115/MT), the coal to power that plant for 30 years would cost $5 billion 175 million dollars. The wind through those turbines comes free.

Let me add that the coal to produce the power those 7,500, 15 MW wind turbines could make over 30 years would cost $1 trillion,164 billion ,375 million dollars. The wind through those turbines still comes free

 

[Crick]

Sorry, I got sidetracked by EMH and then forgot where I was.

Sorry if some of that was over your head I'm not going to rake back over it and break it down.

It wasn't over my head, it was just very poorly worded.

From production to end product to final generation you are absolutely incorrect. Wind and solar are absolutely not cheaper. With the possible exception of coal.

This point has been posted here on numereous occasions. Wind and solar are cheaper per kWh than coal, petroleum or natural gas.

Data source: IEA

Also nothing is free. If you're using wind you're taking it away from something else there is a cost.

Do you seriously want to try to make that your argument?

If you're absorbing solar energy It is no longer available for other uses. Ultimately there is a minimum cost to pay and it cannot be avoided.

I've seen some reaching hanging around here but these two take the cake.

Would I prefer to see hydrocarbon go away completely? Yes I would.

Why?

Do we need to treat it as an emergency and break our asses to make it happen?

Pretty much, yeah.

No I don't think so.

Is that based on the idea that putting up solar panels will prevent us from using solar energy for something else? Like, I don't know, using magnifying glasses to burn up ants> Is that based on the idea that wind turbines are going to becalm all the world's sailboats?

I've said before the world is moving in the right direction and when the time is right we will have our energy source minus the hydrocarbon pollution. I can almost guarantee you it won't be wind and solar.

Jo

 

[ding]

Wind and solar are intermittent energy producers and are unreliable for base loading power grids. End of story.

The very best they can ever be is augmentation.

 

[Captain Caveman]

It's nothing to do with planet saving, it's just all about control.

 

[Crick]

It's nothing to do with planet saving, it's just all about control.

Are you not attempting to stop AGW mitigation measures from being enacted? Is that not an attempt to take control?

 

[justoffal]

Let me add that the coal to produce the power those 7,500, 15 MW wind turbines could make over 30 years would cost $1 trillion,164 billion ,375 million dollars. The wind through those turbines still comes free

Nothing is free. You really need to break the habit of inferring that energy transitions are available with no cost because it's a lie. For all your screaming and moaning about the environmental cost of hydrocarbon you have completely neglected the comparable environmental cost of wind and solar which is still being investigated even as we speak.

I feel like I'm lecturing a Solar salesman (once again) who knocks on my door insisting that he can install solar panels for free which is really nothing more than a con man's shoe stuck in my door. The construction and production of the machinery to harness the wind for instance is very costly and even though those costs are coming down they will eventually hit a low point that they cannot go below they may have done that already. Additionally you cannot offer out a metered supply based on the intermittent actions of the Sun and the wind so you going to need augmentation in the form of something like a gas turbine plant. (Until we perfect fusion at which point wind and solar will become obsolete immediately) You simply cannot separate the costs of the two into separate categories because they cannot exist without each other as whole grid suppliers. As far as I know it is still necessary to burn hydrocarbon to produce the machinery for the renewables industry. I don't think it's been determined whether or not that can be accomplished just on parasitism alone... It probably can't be. And yes I am seriously making that argument..... Large wind turbines have been known to cause microclimates downstream of their operation centers and solar the panels will most certainly have some effect on heat reflected back into the atmosphere which will come with some hidden costs sooner or later you can be sure of it.

So if you're done taking the belittling position which is something you simply cannot seem to shake yourself away from maybe take a good read and understand that your Henny Penny sky is falling strategy is a loser and will continue to be a loser.

You might be surprised to find out that we're all after the same thing in the end if you pay attention long enough to what you're reading and take a pause from condescension.

I'm not counting on it though.

Jo

 

[Crick]

Nothing is free. You really need to break the habit of inferring that energy transitions are available with no cost because it's a lie.

I have made no such inference but you could stop inferring that wind and sunlight have a cost.

For all your screaming and moaning about the environmental cost of hydrocarbon you have completely neglected the comparable environmental cost of wind and solar which is still being investigated even as we speak.

My concern about hydrocarbons has one focus: the emission of carbon dioxide. Wind and solar technology will never come anywhere remotely near hydrocarbons in that regard. This hysterical attempt to attack wind and solar on their environmental cost is completely disingenuous and unsupportable.

I feel like I'm lecturing a Solar salesman (once again) who knocks on my door insisting that he can install solar panels for free which is really nothing more than a con man's shoe stuck in my door.

They don't come to my door but call me several times a week. I hang up on them.

The construction and production of the machinery to harness the wind for instance is very costly

I agree that the cost to build a 15 MW wind turbine on its tall pole in the middle of a corn field is greater than the cost of building 15 MW of coal or natural gas capacity on the ground. But that differential vanishes within a month or less of operation simply due to the unavoidable cost of the latter's fuel. The differential environmental costs, even ignoring AGW, also disappear as millions of tons of coal or millions of cubic feet of natural gas have to be located, extracted and transported from somewhere to keep that plant running.

and even though those costs are coming down they will eventually hit a low point that they cannot go below they may have done that already.

Which, at the momet, is already less LCOE per kWH than coal, petroleum or natural gas.

Additionally you cannot offer out a metered supply based on the intermittent actions of the Sun and the wind so you going to need augmentation in the form of something like a gas turbine plant. (Until we perfect fusion at which point wind and solar will become obsolete immediately)

You're once again being disingenuous. You cannot supply utility power solely with sunlight, but you act as if the sun setting was some sort of revelation. The world's utilities have been happily selling solar-generated electricity for many years now and they seem to have worked out the process. There are a number of ways to augment intermittent supply and quite a few that still do not emit GHGs: batteries, wind, water towers, hydroelectric, etc.

You simply cannot separate the costs of the two into separate categories because they cannot exist without each other as whole grid suppliers.

That does not seem to have bothered the electrical utilities of the world. Try to keep in mind that the goal of this transition is to eliminate GHGs. That the cost of this transition is coming down is excellent, but hardly unexpected and NOT why it is taking place.

As far as I know it is still necessary to burn hydrocarbon to produce the machinery for the renewables industry.

There is NO reason the electricity or heat required to produce every single component of solar and wind facilities cannot itself be produced by non-emitting technologies. Even only going as far as you know.

I don't think it's been determined whether or not that can be accomplished just on parasitism alone...

I can guarantee you that it was never even a question. And parasitism? That's meaningless BS when your fuel is free.

It probably can't be. And yes I am seriously making that argument.....

Then you are seriously, knowingly and intentionally incorrect.

Large wind turbines have been known to cause microclimates downstream of their operation centers

Their operation centers? Do you mean wind farms? And can you spell out the harm that you imply these microclimates cause? Micro bad weather?

and solar the panels will most certainly have some effect on heat reflected back into the atmosphere which will come with some hidden costs sooner or later you can be sure of it.

Solar panels are as black as they can be. That is not a color that effectively "reflects" EM radiation.; it is good at absorbing IR and radiating IR, if it weren't that it was putting as much of that absorbed EM as it could into creating electrical current The heat they are receiving, in any case, is coming from GHGs in the atmosphere warmed by the planet's surface, not the sun. And they block IR coming up from the ground underneath them. And despite all of that, they required NO cooling systems, unlike the massive, power-consuming systems fossil fuel plants require.

So if you're done taking the belittling position which is something you simply cannot seem to shake yourself away from maybe take a good read and understand that your Henny Penny sky is falling strategy is a loser and will continue to be a loser.

Unfortunately for that argument, the sky is falling.

You might be surprised to find out that we're all after the same thing in the end if you pay attention long enough to what you're reading and take a pause from condescension.

I am after an end to the use of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. What are you after?

I'm not counting on it though.

I'm going to continue trying to convince people here that AGW is a real threat that needs to be dealt with in a committed fashion ASAP.

 

[ding]

Are you not attempting to stop AGW mitigation measures from being enacted? Is that not an attempt to take control?

How exactly would one do that? That's as idiotic as believing you are attempting to enact AGW mitigation. Your carbon footprint is no different than the average American. You seem to think your caring about it means something. It doesn't.

 

[Resnic]

First, we have EV's to help us save the planet. Now, recharging them takes electricity and most all electricity pollutes the planet so just charging them is bad for the planet. Then we the batteries themselves:

Battery life has been one of the most pressing issues facing Tesla and the electric vehicle (EV) market as a whole. Lithium-ion batteries, which power EVs, are notoriously difficult and costly to manufacture due to the fact that they necessitate the mining of materials such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel.

Mining these materials comes with a considerable negative environmental impact, as it requires the use of dirty energy, utilizes massive amounts of water, and contributes heavily to land degradation.

Lithium-ion batteries are also difficult to recycle

Tesla shares a surprising revelation about how long the battery lasts in some of its most popular car models

Tesla has struggled throughout its existence to keep up with the demand for the product.

www.yahoo.com

Next we have solar panels.

Solar Panels Are Starting to Die, Leaving Behind Toxic Trash

Photovoltaic panels are a boon for clean energy but are tricky to recycle. As the oldest ones expire, get ready for a solar e-waste glut.

www.wired.com

Then we move on to nuclear power

6 reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to a green and peaceful world - Greenpeace International

With the costs and efficiency of renewable energy solutions improving year on year, and the effects of our rapidly changing climate accelerating across the globe, we need to take an honest look at some of the myths being perpetuated by the nuclear industry and its supporters. Here are six...

www.greenpeace.org

Those, and wind energy are addressed in the following link:

Green Technologies Cause Massive Waste and Pollution

Electric vehicle batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines result in a massive amount of waste and pollution. China is responsible…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Because "saving the planet" is something you can't actually prove. Meaning you can't prove it needs saving, you also can't prove we are saving it. It's all a big game of "because I said so".

And for this current democrat administration that's perfect. They can claim there is a problem, claim they are fixing it so they can pat themselves on the back and tout all the work they are doing, and to the average person it looks like they are really doing something. But in the end it's all about creating the illusion of doing something.

It's also an avenue to look and sound important, a platform to stand on, the ability to shift money around without proving it's worth it, and enrich themselves financially and politically. Plus it gives them an excuse for trying to impose more laws and rules and taxes on people.

It's an amazing smokescreen. And no one will argue it because they don't want to sound like they don't care about the environment.

 

[Billo_Really]

Bearings and brushes. And fatiguing the blades.

So what! bearings and bushings are easily replaced. And I've never heard of a fan blade breaking apart due to fatigue.

 

[fncceo]

I Never Really Understood The Left's Obsession With Saving The Planet​

That's actually pretty easy ... expressing a desire to "save the planet" , despite the planet not needing to be save and the inability of them to save it if it did, is the ultimate in magnanimous virtue signalling.

People claiming to save the planet can demand any sacrifice of others and still pretend to occupy the moral high ground.

 

[jc456]

Because "saving the planet" is something you can't actually prove. Meaning you can't prove it needs saving, you also can't prove we are saving it. It's all a big game of "because I said so".

And for this current democrat administration that's perfect. They can claim there is a problem, claim they are fixing it so they can pat themselves on the back and tout all the work they are doing, and to the average person it looks like they are really doing something. But in the end it's all about creating the illusion of doing something.

It's also an avenue to look and sound important, a platform to stand on, the ability to shift money around without proving it's worth it, and enrich themselves financially and politically. Plus it gives them an excuse for trying to impose more laws and rules and taxes on people.

It's an amazing smokescreen. And no one will argue it because they don't want to sound like they don't care about the environment.

it's a con game, and it exposes those who are easily conned.

 

[justoffal]

That's actually pretty easy ... expressing a desire to "save the planet" , despite the planet not needing to be save and the inability of them to save it if it did, is the ultimate in magnanimous virtue signalling.

People claiming to save the planet can demand any sacrifice of others and still pretend to occupy the moral high ground.

BA-DA-Bing! Right on the money!

 

[justoffal]

it's a con game, and it exposes those who are easily conned.

Yep

 

[rightwinger]

That's actually pretty easy ... expressing a desire to "save the planet" , despite the planet not needing to be save and the inability of them to save it if it did, is the ultimate in magnanimous virtue signalling.

People claiming to save the planet can demand any sacrifice of others and still pretend to occupy the moral high ground.

Very true

There is nothing that humans can do that will hurt the planet.
The planet is one son of a bitch piece of rock. It will survive regardless of what we do.

We may not

 

[fncceo]

Very true

There is nothing that humans can do that will hurt the planet.
The planet is one son of a bitch piece of rock. It will survive regardless of what we do.

We may not

The end of civilization as we know it has happened before... But it has been spuriously predicted many thousands of time more.

 

[jc456]

The end of civilization as we know it has happened before... But it has been spuriously predicted many thousands of time more.

Right? What happened to the people of the pyramids

 

[fncceo]

Right? What happened to the people of the pyramids

They we conquered by Greeks, Romans, Turks, Byzantines, an the British.

 

[JGalt]

They we conquered by Greeks, Romans, Turks, Byzantines, an the British.

You left out the Israelis during the 6 Day War.

 

[jc456]

They we conquered by Greeks, Romans, Turks, Byzantines, an the British.

They didn’t exist back then! They’ve, historians, stated the pyramids go back farther