Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power

[flacaltenn]

But I've said it many times.
Expressing a 50-80% renewable and the rest NG.

Doesn't matter how many times you SAY it -- it's still a wildly wrong guess.

There's not a lot of solid analysis in ANY of the sources you've used. The writing is all about WANTS and not grid design.

Simplified analysis -- wind and solar are SUPPLEMENTS -- NOT ALTERNATIVES to anything we have now. The both operate at meaningful levels only 30 to 40% of the time.

In an analysis from the California ISO about 10 years ago -- the daytime PEAK -- for which supplements are USEFUL (especially solar) is only about 20% higher than the demand at 10PM. So -- as you approach 20% -- the SUPPLEMENTS are being misused (especially solar) since it naps a couple hours before sundown until a couple hours AFTER sunrise.

If you were to PUSH to 50% -- the ONLY goal you achieve is needing MORE NGas or other 24/7/365 facilities to PRESERVE the grid demand. That means the SUPPLEMENTS GET MORE EXPENSIVE because you're building out TWO power plants instead of just one.

And even as DAYTIME PEAKING supplements -- you STILL design the grid to survive the loss of ONE or BOTH wind/solar. Which means that THEY (wind/solar) were NEVER alternatives and as such were severely mis-named on purpose.

 

[abu afak]

Doesn't matter how many times you SAY it -- it's still a wildly wrong guess.

There's not a lot of solid analysis in ANY of the sources you've used. The writing is all about WANTS and not grid design.

Simplified analysis -- wind and solar are SUPPLEMENTS -- NOT ALTERNATIVES to anything we have now. The both operate at meaningful levels only 30 to 40% of the time.

In an analysis from the California ISO about 10 years ago -- the daytime PEAK -- for which supplements are USEFUL (especially solar) is only about 20% higher than the demand at 10PM. So -- as you approach 20% -- the SUPPLEMENTS are being misused (especially solar) since it naps a couple hours before sundown until a couple hours AFTER sunrise.

If you were to PUSH to 50% -- the ONLY goal you achieve is needing MORE NGas or other 24/7/365 facilities to PRESERVE the grid demand. That means the SUPPLEMENTS GET MORE EXPENSIVE because you're building out TWO power plants instead of just one.

And even as DAYTIME PEAKING supplements -- you STILL design the grid to survive the loss of ONE or BOTH wind/solar. Which means that THEY (wind/solar) were NEVER alternatives and as such were severely mis-named on purpose.

I was truly interested in the topic.
I'm NOT interested in your Right Wing Clown Claims. (like it stopped warming in 2008) (or your new linkLESS ones)
So I started and thread and put up two links in the OP to open discussion

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky. We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021). How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon. I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in...

www.usmessageboard.com

"""Sep 9, 2022
50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky.
We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021).
How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon.
Two opinions:

1. Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.​

​

"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is particularly true above 60% or 80% decarbonization, when the costs of the renewables-only option rise sharply.​

Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60% decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80% or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options."..."​

-
Some say 100% is possible, I don't see it any time soon without new technology.

2. 100% renewable energy - Wikipedia​

​

"...Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.​

​

So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?​

​

That is the core of the dispute over 100% renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS."..."​

- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

So your empty opinions and idiocy like 'warming stopped in 2008' mean NOTHING to me you Right Wing Creationist Clown.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was truly interested in the topic.
I'm NOT interested in your Right Wing Clown Claims. (like it stopped warming in 2008) (or your new linkLESS ones)
So I started and thread and put up two links in the OP to open discussion

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky. We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021). How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon. I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in...

www.usmessageboard.com

"""Sep 9, 2022
50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky.
We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021).
How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon.
Two opinions:

1. Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.​

​

"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is particularly true above 60% or 80% decarbonization, when the costs of the renewables-only option rise sharply.​

Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60% decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80% or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options."..."​

-
Some say 100% is possible, I don't see it any time soon without new technology.

2. 100% renewable energy - Wikipedia​

​

"...Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.​

​

So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?​

​

That is the core of the dispute over 100% renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS."..."​

- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

So your empty opinions and idiocy like 'warming stopped in 2008' mean NOTHING to me you Right Wing Creationist Clown.

`

Here's some more info you can ignore......

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

This UN report thinks wind power needs 0.9 GW of backup power for every GW of wind capacity.

I wonder how much backup they think solar needs?

Let's run the numbers for solar at 90% as well.

And when I say, "let's run the numbers", I mean, you're a stupid liberal, so I'll run them for you and you'll ignore them because they make your ideas look idiotic.

Expressing a 50-80% renewable and the rest NG.

Nat gas would be 20-50% to start.

90% back up for the 50%-80% renewable means another 45% to 72% NG.

92-95% nat gas with 45-72% only used some of the time. Building all that capacity

and only using it when solar and wind aren't working for you......that's gonna be expensive.

What sort of numbers did you come up with? Or did you like the 3rd world idea?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm going to Discount it because as I have posted many times, including last night, Solar has become 90% more cost effective and efficient in the 2010s. (Wind too).
So your 2009 article is irrelevant/obsolete.

I only responded to your @sshole self because this was not your usual quip.
Too bad it's dated beyond use.
I should have just quipped short two lines as you do you TROLL let you know what's it's like to put some work in a post and then have a little mental case like you just Troll it.
Now go **** yourself.
Bye
`

Solar has become 90% more cost effective and efficient in the 2010s. (Wind too).

Aside from your clear misunderstanding, how does the "increased efficiency" help when the wind is calm or the sun has set?

Too bad it's dated beyond use.

If you find anything more recent on the topic, I'm sure you'll post it, even if it highlights your ignorance. DURR

 

[abu afak]

Here's some more info you can ignore......

View attachment 705446

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

This UN report thinks wind power needs 0.9 GW of backup power for every GW of wind capacity.

I wonder how much backup they think solar needs?

Let's run the numbers for solar at 90% as well.

And when I say, "let's run the numbers", I mean, you're a stupid liberal, so I'll run them for you and you'll ignore them because they make your ideas look idiotic.

Expressing a 50-80% renewable and the rest NG.

Nat gas would be 20-50% to start.

90% back up for the 50%-80% renewable means another 45% to 72% NG.

92-95% nat gas with 45-72% only used some of the time. Building all that capacity

and only using it when solar and wind aren't working for you......that's gonna be expensive.

What sort of numbers did you come up with? Or did you like the 3rd world idea?

I'm going to Discount it because as I have posted many times, including last night, Solar has become 90% more cost effective and efficient in the 2010s. (Wind and Battery too).
So your 2009 article is irrelevant/obsolete.

`

 

[MisterBeale]

Also doesn't help transparency or instill confidence in cost estimates of TRUE COSTS of "supplemental" sources like Wind/Solar when states like Cali have essentially "CLASSIFIED" the contractuals and costs of new renewable projects so that public CAN NOT ACCESS THEM until YEARS after these facilities get built.

The utter lack of skepticism from these folks, astonishes me.

 

[Crick]

The utter lack of skepticism from these folks, astonishes me.

If you think what you do here is skepticism, you are seriously misinformed.

 

[MisterBeale]

If you think what you do here is skepticism, you are seriously misinformed.

Tell me why planes and yachts of the European elites are exempt from carbon taxation?

Tell me why all these climate conference that they hold, are not done on-line, but, all of these elites fly in by private planes, and not commercial aircraft. Why don't they hold these conference entirely on-line?

Tell me why the folks that want to foist this reality on everyone else, buy ocean front property?

Show me how I am misinformed, don't just make an unqualified declarative statement, when we have all posed these questions, time after time, with no answers heard from your side.

I have, so many times, pointed out, that the cloud computing used by intel agencies and global corporations, are the tenth largest consumer of energy on the planet, which, is mostly a useless and needless drain of energy. Profiling and predicting the consumer and personalities of every person on the planet is NOT a good use of energy or production of CO2.

The whole, "smart grid, energy use," paradigm, is an energy suck and a complete waste of energy, but the global oligarchs, continue to push this plan, WHY?

3G phones were fine, upgrading to 4G was foolish if global warming is a thing, and then 5g? An even more colossal energy vacuum, if there is truth in it. . . and yet, the global elites and global corporations did it anyway, WHY?!

All of that uses WAY MORE energy than all the ICE cars and transport on the planet combined, and THAT, is a fact.

 

[Crick]

Tell me why planes and yachts of the European elites are exempt from carbon taxation?

Who are "European elites" and what carbon taxation are you talking about?

Tell me why all these climate conference that they hold, are not done on-line, but, all of these elites fly in by private planes, and not commercial aircraft. Why don't they hold these conference entirely on-line?

I am certain that an enormous amount of communication is done online. Transportation is complex. I can see some small planes actually burning less fuel per capita than a large airliner

Tell me why the folks that want to foist this reality on everyone else, buy ocean front property?

Tell me how you got stupid enough to think that matters.

Show me how I am misinformed, don't just make an unqualified declarative statement, when we have all posed these questions, time after time, with no answers heard from your side.

You are doing nothing here but making your own unqualified declarative statements. And I have provided deniers with proper answers on many occasions, yourself included.

I have, so many times, pointed out, that the cloud computing used by intel agencies and global corporations, are the tenth largest consumer of energy on the planet, which, is mostly a useless and needless drain of energy. Profiling and predicting the consumer and personalities of every person on the planet is NOT a good use of energy or production of CO2.

I think the largest consumer of power for CPUs is the cryptocurrency field and I rather doubt that intel agencies do a lot of cloud computing. I think they rather prefer to stay in-house. But feel free to talk to them about their excess energy consumption.

The whole, "smart grid, energy use," paradigm, is an energy suck and a complete waste of energy, but the global oligarchs, continue to push this plan, WHY?

If you think smart grids waste energy, then I'd have to make the founded declarative statement that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course, that is indicated by almost everything you've ever said on this forum. Who are "the global oligarchs" and have you ever noticed the close resemblance you bear to someone suffering paranoid delusions?

3G phones were fine, upgrading to 4G was foolish if global warming is a thing, and then 5g? An even more colossal energy vacuum, if there is truth in it. . . and yet, the global elites and global corporations did it anyway, WHY?!

All of that uses WAY MORE energy than all the ICE cars and transport on the planet combined, and THAT, is a fact.

What is wrong with you? Does your therapist know you're participating in a public discussion forum? Do they approve?

This is why I put you on IGNORE.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm going to Discount it because as I have posted many times, including last night, Solar has become 90% more cost effective and efficient in the 2010s. (Wind and Battery too).
So your 2009 article is irrelevant/obsolete.

`

You're losing to logic/reason and engineering/numbers. You PROJECT that wind/solar can power and EXPAND current grid demands. And that because of the cost curve on the PV panels or bladed turbines -- that's it's CHEAPER and JUST as effective as the CURRENT grid generators.

It's logic/reason & engineering/numbers. And it's simple actually.

Let's just leave wind behind since its' the sketchier more costly "supplement" and do the math to turn SOLAR from a daytime peaking supplement into a TRUE alternative. This shouldn't stress your brain or your honesty. LOL...

For a blend of lattitudes and seasonal variations experienced ALL over the lower 48 states -- I'll generously give solar 8 hours per day near PEAK rated performance. That leaves 16 hours a day that have to be covered by other means. So -- let's STORE IT. In HUMONGEOUS battery farms hereto never contemplated by man. Man currently is stretching the bounds of financing/storing just FOUR hours a day just for ONE medium sized community.

To STORE IT -- you need the RATED output of field during the day -- PLUS -- TWICE as many Mwatt - Hrs to CHARGE the battery storage. Means you need TWO TIMES MORE solar panels to charge the batteries during the day. THAT -- Adds DOUBLE the cost of the land/facilities/PV panels.

THEN --- you'll need the 12 hours of storage battery farm. Since the MW-HR cost ratio between the land/facilities/PV panels and the battery storage is somewhat immune to the POWER rating of the total system -- From the ACTUAL data on grid scale battery facilities costs -- It's about 2 to 4 TIMES the cost of your "naked" solar farm. So being GENEROUS AGAIN -- I'll quip to 2 times the cost of your original 8 hour a day solar facility. And since the MW-Hrs are TWICE as much IN STORAGE as being used during the day -- THAT -- QUADRUPLES the cost of your naked daytime only solar generator.

Now for the HARD part --- What is (Doubles + Quadruples) -- boys and girls and other genders? Or 2 + 4 == ???? That's RIGHT Toddster (LOL).

To MAKE A DAYTIME ONLY SUPPLEMENTAL SOLAR GENERATION FIELD INTO A REAL ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCE USING STORAGE is AT LEAST SIX TIMES the cost of the original supplemental daytime peaking -- naked without storage -- solar installation.

And you wonder why NO ONE is interested in "how cheap the panels are"??? It's because they've done the math and the engineering and applied logic/reason and it's a waste of THEIR time to TELL THEM "how cheap solar is"...

 

[Crick]

Why do you try to make an argument based on using solar and nothing else?

 

[flacaltenn]

I've actually skipped the really bad news of engineering/numbers reality here in the simplified example. For instance since the battery storage needs to CHARGE and DISCHARGE EVERY DAY at MAX power -- you've probably taken more than a couple years off the battery lifetime of your TRUE ALTERNATIVE - fully battery back-up'd solar farm.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why do you try to make an argument based on using solar and nothing else?

It's a starting point to show why the naked costs of solar are irrelevant. All the fan bois and girls of wind and solar DONT CARE about making wind and solar MORE than mere "supplements". And instead literally CALL THEM ALTERNATIVES -- which they are not --- WITHOUT MASSIVE COSTS of some kind to make "supplements" into alternatives.

 

[Crick]

It's a starting point to show why the naked costs of solar are irrelevant. All the fan bois and girls of wind and solar DONT CARE about making wind and solar MORE than mere "supplements". And instead literally CALL THEM ALTERNATIVES -- which they are not --- WITHOUT MASSIVE COSTS of some kind to make "supplements" into alternatives.

As I've pointed out a couple times recently to Toddsterpatriot, the fact that you (I assume) assign no value to an energy technology's capability to generate power without producing GHGs means there will always be a large difference between you and those who do value such things when conducting cost/benefit analyses for these alternative technologies.

 

[MisterBeale]

Your evasions, equivocations, deflections, outright lies, and, well, in the end, personal attacks and anger at my pointed remarks about your epistemological bullshit has been noted.

Who are "European elites" and what carbon taxation are you talking about?

I am certain that an enormous amount of communication is done online. Transportation is complex. I can see some small planes actually burning less fuel per capita than a large airliner

The folks that are running the climate scam as a way to make money and consolidate power are the ruling elites, or oligarchs. It turns out, I was wrong about taxation on private aircraft, but correct on yachts.

Itâs time to ban private jets â or at least tax them to the ground | Akin Olla

Kylie Jenner’s 17-minute private jet ride is a reminder that private jets are morally obscene and terrible for the climate. The planet can no longer afford these indulgences

www.theguardian.com

EU slaps fuel tax on private jets

Contrary to the European Commission’s original plan to exempt cargo planes and private jets from a fuel surcharge, the EU has for the first time in its history instated a €0.37 ($0.44) fuel tax on private jets, likely to be applied within two years. In mid-July, the Commission presented a review...

rmx.news

As Politicians Threaten To Ban Cars In The Name Of Climate, Yachts Are Exempt From Ruling

A new European Union draft proposal concerning maritime emissions would exempt yachts at a time where politicians target automobiles.

www.musclecarsandtrucks.com

https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Climate_Impacts_of_Shipping_Exemptions_Report-1.pdf

I am dumbfounded that you do not know what I am talking about. It matters not how much communication is done on-line, I am talking about these wasteful confabs, which are just excuses to take luxury vacations, and consume copious amounts of luxurious resources for the jet-setting upper classes. GTFO here with your equivocations and playing stupid. And private planes being more fuel efficient than commercial jet airlines, are you serious with that? How dumb to do you think folks on this forum are? As dumb as you?

Tell me how you got stupid enough to think that matters.

All it means, is the folks mouthing this garbage also KNOW this AGW propaganda is nothing but that, don't believe a word of it, otherwise, that land would lose value, and it would be a bad investment. Tell me how you are so ignorant that you would imagine it isn't a consideration. Oh, no wait, never mind, hypocrisy, deflection, and attacking your ideological opponents, rather than directly addressing the argument, seems to be all you have in the way of argument.

You are doing nothing here but making your own unqualified declarative statements. And I have provided deniers with proper answers on many occasions, yourself included.

IOW? No answers, none.

I think the largest consumer of power for CPUs is the cryptocurrency field and I rather doubt that intel agencies do a lot of cloud computing. I think they rather prefer to stay in-house. But feel free to talk to them about their excess energy consumption.

Last time I gave proof that yes, crypto miners are in this group, but they are not alone, you became triggered. Crypto miners are on the small side. They are, indeed growing, I won't argue with you there. OTHO, if the global ruling classes were really concerned with this problem, they would not be making electric smart driving cars, which drive themselves, you have no idea how much energy and computing power that takes, complete smart cities? Forget about it. No, the folks pushing AGW no how much of a scam that bullshit is, otherwise, they would not be pushing 5G everything. Last time I posted complete, detailed articles about all that bullshit, you got triggered then, and promised me you would ignore me, what the hell happened Frances? Why do you sometimes decide to challenge someone who is clearly your intellectual superior?


It only brings you mental anguish to have to deal with cognitive dissonance, and everyone can see, you deal with it badly. You then resort, to nothing but name calling.

If you think smart grids waste energy, then I'd have to make the founded declarative statement that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course, that is indicated by almost everything you've ever said on this forum. Who are "the global oligarchs" and have you ever noticed the close resemblance you bear to someone suffering paranoid delusions?

I don't think, I KNOW. I have proved this before. The fact that you are too stupid to even know who is running the world in the 21st century? That is the most shameful of all. You are almost too ignorant to have a conversation with.

https://www.iftf.org/hyperconnectedworld/

The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III]​

Wrong Kind of Green Nov 28, 2020 Foundations, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Social Engineering, United Nations, Whiteness & Aversive Racism
November 28, 2020


By Cory Morningstar

Part three. This is the final segment of a three-part investigative series. [Part 1] [Part 2]

The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III] - Wrong Kind of Green

"Social license is being harvested to reset the capitalist system – under the guise of a climate emergency and saving the planet. This we know: the planet will not be saved by those that have destroyed it."

www.wrongkindofgreen.org

What is wrong with you? Does your therapist know you're participating in a public discussion forum? Do they approve?

This is why I put you on IGNORE.

That fact that I bring cold hold reality, and why the global oligarchs are so desperate to get Russia and China, and every other oligarch, into their "New World Order," controlling everyone's use of energy, making energy the new global currency, turning that into credits? That scares the shit out of you. I know precisely why the folks in control want to track and trace every bit of energy produced and consumed, and want to make energy the currency of the twenty first century, for every nation, for every corporation, school, business, government and person.

And it has not a damn bit to do with climate. It has every thing to do with control.

So yeah, you best keep me on ignore, because?

 

[abu afak]

It's a starting point to show why the naked costs of solar are irrelevant. All the fan bois and girls of wind and solar DONT CARE about making wind and solar MORE than mere "supplements". And instead literally CALL THEM ALTERNATIVES -- which they are not --- WITHOUT MASSIVE COSTS of some kind to make "supplements" into alternatives.

We've just had an exchange above where I used "50%-80% Renewables" (but a goal higher) with "NG supplemental."

So now you're just ****** Lying.
Shameless/delusional.

You really need debriefing/Therapy for your ability to Ignore even things said on this very page by me!
You are classically partisan blind and unable to carry on a coherent conversation if you LIE about what the other person/people said.
Resign.
`

 

[MisterBeale]

I know this is near the bottom of the pyramid but your post IS INCOHERENT.
If you'd would like to make a point about AGW (or not)...
Or Renewable Viability (or Not)...
I have (and would be glad to again) "Refute" or "explicitly Refute."

However, not on your pyramid (but lower down) is what YOU did: Bury em with (rambling) BS replete with Quadruple spacing for the illusion of Volume/Credibility to intimidate/bludgeon.
Failed.

`

Sure, feel free to answer the questions about why the folks pushing the AGW don't act like they believe it is real.

Tell me why yachts of the European elites are exempt from carbon taxation?

Tell me why all these climate conferences that they hold, are not done on-line, but, all of these elites fly in by private planes, and not commercial aircraft. Why don't they hold these conference entirely on-line?

Tell me why the folks that want to foist this reality on everyone else, buy ocean front property?

I have, so many times, pointed out, that the cloud computing used by intel agencies and global corporations, are the tenth largest consumer of energy on the planet, which, is mostly a useless and needless drain of energy. Profiling and predicting the consumer and personalities of every person on the planet is NOT a good use of energy or production of CO2.

The whole, "smart grid, energy use," paradigm, is an energy suck and a complete waste of energy, but the global oligarchs, continue to push this plan, WHY?

3G phones were fine, upgrading to 4G was foolish if global warming is a thing, and then 5g? An even more colossal energy vacuum, if there is truth in it. . . and yet, the global elites and global corporations did it anyway, WHY?!

All of that uses WAY MORE energy than all the ICE cars and transport on the planet combined, and THAT, is a fact.

The projected growth in power needs, will not be met by "clean," energy technology. These folks rely too heavily on bio-mass, which mean, chopping down all the forests, doesn't it?

 

[MisterBeale]

. . I don't expect you to answer, nitpick and make stoopid off topic criticisms. Just like cricket.

 

[MisterBeale]

I know this is near the bottom of the pyramid but your post IS INCOHERENT.
If you'd would like to make a point about AGW (or not)...
Or Renewable Viability (or Not)...
I have (and would be glad to again) "Refute" or "explicitly Refute."

However, not on your pyramid (but lower down) is what YOU did: Bury em with (rambling) BS replete with Quadruple spacing and Multiple Images for the illusion of Volume/Credibility to intimidate/Bludgeon.
Failed.

`

 

[flacaltenn]

As I've pointed out a couple times recently to Toddsterpatriot, the fact that you (I assume) assign no value to an energy technology's capability to generate power without producing GHGs means there will always be a large difference between you and those who do value such things when conducting cost/benefit analyses for these alternative technologies.

Oh hell no. I've given MANY EXAMPLES where wind/solar COULD play a BIG ROLE in a future energy generation. You just didn't listen. I KNOW you've heard it.

For instance -- Moving hydrogen into a future "zero emissions" economy would be a great move. It's prohibitively expensive to "crack it" out of H20 -- but the fuel cells to USE IT are very advanced and possible for transport sector power and Grid back-up. INSTEAD of Battery Armageddon.

BEST PART of this concept is - it would be used OFF GRID to produce hydrogen from water or hydrocarbons. And it DOES NOT MATTER that wind/solar are not schedulable or reliable for hydrogen production -- It's only the AVERAGE power available that matters -- because stored HYDROGEN FUEL is the STORAGE mechanism.

I'm not discounting uses for your sketchy "alternatives" that are only supplements to the grid, I'm LOOKING for all the places where they BENEFIT THE MOST.

That's the difference between AOC/Sanders and me. It should be frightening enough to you to realize that CONGRESS is designing our next gen energy system -- but leftists have no sense of self-preservation and worship ANYTHING that's pitched right to them.