Would you support renewable no matter what the climate does?

[Soggy in NOLA]

This isn't the way it works bub... markets aren't driven by feelings, they're driven by demand.

Go take a econ 101 class for Crisakes.

And is demand ever driven by feelings?

Ya know, I get where you're going here... and to a degree you have a point. However, the reality is, the green community is wishing something is that frankly, just isn't.... yet.

 

[Saigon]

Ya know, I get where you're going here... and to a degree you have a point. However, the reality is, the green community is wishing something is that frankly, just isn't.... yet.

I don't entirely disagree.

I support nuclear, because I don't think we can live without it. Tidal may be enough in some parts of the world, but it isn't there yet, and tidal and solar only work in optimal conditions.

 

[flacaltenn]

People don't buy power plants.. They purchase POWER from them..

You're perfectly welcome to offer green energy to them to the extent to which it fits on the grid and is economically competitive.

But at some point, the grid ceases to function with ALL the green sources being sporadic and randomly available.. That's NOT a consumer concern.. Until it hits them in the wallet or during a liver transplant..

It's all an engineering/physics issue...

 

[polarbear]

It's not just Goldman-Sachs. Halliburton (Cheney) owns the safety valves for oil rigs , like that one that failed inthe Gulf of Mexico, and they own parts used in fracking.

Obama isn't naive. Why do you think he was invested in all those green industries? There's a good chance they could have provided cheaper, safer, better technologies, but the big boys didn't want that...

Well "Grandma" I did tell You that I do have a whole lot of respects for opinions that Grandmothers have, because they do know some things that the Younger generation does not know. But I have a few points of contention what You just said here. Surely You realize if You think it over a little bit that anybody who has an investment in a company that builds shut off valves has no say at all in how these are designed. Also, yes there are other international financiers behind wind and solar projects, but Goldman Sachs is as ever thee main money conduit and these special "financial instruments" that are used by everybody who invests in this business is an exclusive Goldman Sachs invention, just like the bundle conversion for rather shaky mortgage loans to "guaranteed derivatives" was..!!!
Secondly the young but not so dumb ex Meredith Co-op engineer had his facts absolutely right when he said on camera in the video I posted how little "Greenhouse gas" the so far combined Wind and Solar prevents.
The data that You have been fed by main stream media is skewed exactly as he said..You get impressive numbers if You take the COMBINED NAME PLATE RATINGS of these wind turbines in MW and do the math how much CO2 that would have been if these MW`s came from (obsolete !!1) coal fired power plants. Modern coal fired power plants don`t work like that any more and have been using for quite some time now much better heat exchangers and state of the art steam turbines. For example "scrubbed" flue gas technologies is not factored into these rather one sided stats either.
But as You should well know, to do the CO2 equivalent math and say that`s how much CO2 wind and solar does or will replace is total nonsense if You make all the nuclear power disappear to "make Your point".
Yes in Germany nuclear power will disappear, but unless You can understand German You`ll never know that You will soon encounter the very same problems we have had in Germany for quite some time already.
And this is why I said that Obama is naive..surely the President of the United States of America should know what is going on in a country like Germany...which isn`t exactly a lo-tech "developing Nation"..:
EEG: Ökostrom-Umlage steigt um 47 Prozent auf rund 5,3 Cent - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Die Ökostrom-Umlage steigt auf rund 5,3 Cent je Kilowattstunde - das entspricht einem Plus von 47 Prozent. Die von der FDP geforderte Senkung der Stromsteuer lehnt Umweltminister Altmaier dennoch ab.

Or perhaps Obama hopes that people who vote for him are too naive to realize what`s (UNAVOIDABLY) going to happen when he implements his "renewable energy" policies. Maybe he has his voters pegged correctly. After all the people who support him in this forum have been naive enough to quote CO2 that Wind & Solar power stats` that "show" how much "CO2 is prevented" and are based on name plate ratings...as if the wind that does blow etc. cares what it says on the name plate ratings of wind turbines.
These turbines have a much narrower "operational envelope" than the AGW lobby thinks (or admits) they have.
Maybe it`s necessary to post the Meredith "Windfall" video again...even the Meredith house-wives are aware of that quaint "little" green energy swindle, it`s in the last few minutes of that documentary :




By the way, "Der Spiegel" is a left wing paper, not something that is "owned by big oil" and has the largest number of fact checkers of any news media on the face of this planet...
Here please do some more research...I have done it and that`s why I came to these conclusions..In addition to that I am an engineer and do know a thing or 2 about generating power
Energiewende - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten
pick any article that caught Your eye

Google does give You the option "translate this page"...it`s just that the grammar comes out a bit screwy once in a while..but with common "Grandma" sense that should not be a problem

 

[westwall]

Only for the rich. The regular folks can't afford to buy things based on "feelings". If they could every house would have a supercar in its driveway.

Really?

So Coke really is the best tasting drink?

Nike really are better shoes than Adidas or Reebok?

Ford really do make better cars than Toyota?

Or are those decisions subjective and based as much on emotion as fact?

Coke and Pepsi cost the same. For the 35,000 that it costs to buy a Chevy Volt you can buy TWO regular gas cars that get at least 40 miles to the gallon. The Volt won't last long enough to make up that initial purchase difference. If you had an ability to think you would allready know that.

The average family is going to look at those numbers and buy the cheaper car. The cheaper car also has a better resale value than the Volt ever will because the regular car doesn't have the ecological nightmare of dealing with the dead batteries.

Real people think about those things. Real people have jobs and have to work and must maintain their homes etc. In other words real people will never buy a vehicle that is not as efficient as that it is trying to replace.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

 

[polarbear]

Only for the rich. The regular folks can't afford to buy things based on "feelings". If they could every house would have a supercar in its driveway.

Really?

So Coke really is the best tasting drink?

Nike really are better shoes than Adidas or Reebok?

Ford really do make better cars than Toyota?

Or are those decisions subjective and based as much on emotion as fact?

Coke and Pepsi cost the same. For the 35,000 that it costs to buy a Chevy Volt you can buy TWO regular gas cars that get at least 40 miles to the gallon. The Volt won't last long enough to make up that initial purchase difference. If you had an ability to think you would allready know that.

The average family is going to look at those numbers and buy the cheaper car. The cheaper car also has a better resale value than the Volt ever will because the regular car doesn't have the ecological nightmare of dealing with the dead batteries.

Real people think about those things. Real people have jobs and have to work and must maintain their homes etc. In other words real people will never buy a vehicle that is not as efficient as that it is trying to replace.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

See this is exactly what`s going on everywhere else in these environment forums and also in this thread. The entire Meredith community has made a documentary film presenting some real facts which they want to share with Americans .
There are all kinds of people writing in this thread who know everything better and the last time (I just checked) this video has only been viewed 9 times. And I bet the only ones who viewed were us "fact deniers", like You, "flac", skookerasbill etc...but certainly not the rest of the green energy "experts" for example this this Saigon Character and all the other ones who suddenly piled into this thread jumping from one subject to another one just as soon as You debunk what they just said on the last subject
They see and "know" only what suits their main stream media pre- digested opinions...and call everyone else "retarded"..I would like to see them say that openly and in person in a community like Meredith NY

 

[polarbear]

Ya know, I get where you're going here... and to a degree you have a point. However, the reality is, the green community is wishing something is that frankly, just isn't.... yet.

I don't entirely disagree.

I support nuclear, because I don't think we can live without it. Tidal may be enough in some parts of the world, but it isn't there yet, and tidal and solar only work in optimal conditions.

Well I`m glad to hear that You (in Finland) supports at least nuclear energy....something the rest of Europe`s green freaks want to ban. In a country which isn`t exactly an industrial giant like the U.S.A.
Your biggest "industry" consists of wide eyed tourists from Japan and Germany who think they have seen the "arctic"...after they paid for tickets to see the midnight sun, Disneyland Kitsch style, get to light a camp fire in a (stunted) Caribou fur Wigwam, or pay to go "gold mining" in some fake dude goldmine:


it only takes 4 nuclear plants to supply 30% of the entire national energy needs. But as far as the rest of the energy Your country produces...and how,...You have no rights to lecture us in North America about "dirty coal power plants" or label us as energy "guzzlers" etc..:
Nuclear Energy in Finland | Finnish Nuclear Power

Finland generates about 80 billion kWh per year, the majority from imported fossil fuels (mostly coal and some gas). Coal is imported from Russia and Poland, all of its gas comes from Russia. In 2010 nuclear provided 23 TWh, coal 21 TWh, hydro 13 TWh, gas 11 TWh, biofuels 11 TWh and imports mostly from Russia were 10.5 TWh. Finland has a very high per capita electricity consumption – some 15,000 kWh per head per year.
The country is part of the deregulated Nordic electricity system which faces shortages, especially in any dry years, when hydroelectric generation is curtailed.

So how many of the "tidal" power plants You have been talking about are in operation in Finland...or Sweden..how many "renewable" MW`s does Finland produce..? Link us to it...why should I have to do it for You?
Or talking about "the arctic is melting"....What You call "arctic"...even the part of Finland inside the arctic circle always had a temperate climate like we do way south in Manitoba or Saskatchewan. You have no idea how cold it really is when You get to Lat. 71 North in our segment of the arctic circle....and what comes beyond would blow Your mind:

 

[freedombecki]

People don't buy power plants.. They purchase POWER from them..

You're perfectly welcome to offer green energy to them to the extent to which it fits on the grid and is economically competitive.

But at some point, the grid ceases to function with ALL the green sources being sporadic and randomly available.. That's NOT a consumer concern.. Until it hits them in the wallet or during a liver transplant..

It's all an engineering/physics issue...

That is very well-stated, flacaltenn, especially the part about green sources tendency to be randomly available.

People don't give credit to the benefits of having ubiquitous electrical power, and it's directly responsible for things that make us live longer, gives us access to books we can now read comfortably into the late hours if we wish, having refrigerators to store food for longer than a day, reducing shopping trips, brings a symphonic orchestra into our surroundings if we care to hear one, we can comfortably bake bread in the summer when it's too hot outside for words but is pleasant indoors. Oh, wow, how wonderful power is if we need hospital intensive care for an accident or other cause.

Bright lights can help pull someone who's depressed into a happier frame of reference. Light, warmth in winter, cooling in summer. Our lives are made so good by consistent energy sources that electrical companies have been bringing us, and the engineers in many companies who have worked so hard to make sure there are no blips on the screen of even tiny outages. American power distribution is wonderful.

 

[Saigon]

Only for the rich. The regular folks can't afford to buy things based on "feelings". If they could every house would have a supercar in its driveway.

Really?

So Coke really is the best tasting drink?

Nike really are better shoes than Adidas or Reebok?

Ford really do make better cars than Toyota?

Or are those decisions subjective and based as much on emotion as fact?

Coke and Pepsi cost the same. For the 35,000 that it costs to buy a Chevy Volt you can buy TWO regular gas cars that get at least 40 miles to the gallon. The Volt won't last long enough to make up that initial purchase difference. If you had an ability to think you would allready know that.

The average family is going to look at those numbers and buy the cheaper car. The cheaper car also has a better resale value than the Volt ever will because the regular car doesn't have the ecological nightmare of dealing with the dead batteries.

Real people think about those things. Real people have jobs and have to work and must maintain their homes etc. In other words real people will never buy a vehicle that is not as efficient as that it is trying to replace.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Congratulation on completely missing the point, Wall - that can't have been easy.

Emotion plays a HUGE part in consumption. People pay more to buy products from Nike or Lexus or BMW or Nikon or Apple or Moet because they have an emotional attachment to preium brands.

Do you really - honestly - think Moet Chandon is worth 4 times what an American methode chamepnois might be worth?

If so, you really are out of touch.

And this also comes into energy. People don't want coal or nuclear anymore.

They want CLEAN energy they feel safe living next door to.

Suppliers need to deal with that perception as well as the facts behind those perceptions.

 

[westwall]

Really?

So Coke really is the best tasting drink?

Nike really are better shoes than Adidas or Reebok?

Ford really do make better cars than Toyota?

Or are those decisions subjective and based as much on emotion as fact?

Coke and Pepsi cost the same. For the 35,000 that it costs to buy a Chevy Volt you can buy TWO regular gas cars that get at least 40 miles to the gallon. The Volt won't last long enough to make up that initial purchase difference. If you had an ability to think you would allready know that.

The average family is going to look at those numbers and buy the cheaper car. The cheaper car also has a better resale value than the Volt ever will because the regular car doesn't have the ecological nightmare of dealing with the dead batteries.

Real people think about those things. Real people have jobs and have to work and must maintain their homes etc. In other words real people will never buy a vehicle that is not as efficient as that it is trying to replace.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Congratulation on completely missing the point, Wall - that can't have been easy.

Emotion plays a HUGE part in consumption. People pay more to buy products from Nike or Lexus or BMW or Nikon or Apple or Moet because they have an emotional attachment to preium brands.

Do you really - honestly - think Moet Chandon is worth 4 times what an American methode chamepnois might be worth?

If so, you really are out of touch.

And this also comes into energy. People don't want coal or nuclear anymore.

They want CLEAN energy they feel safe living next door to.

Suppliers need to deal with that perception as well as the facts behind those perceptions.

No, I think you have missed the point. People want CHEAP energy. As the cost of renewables becomes apparent they abandon them and go back to fossil fueled power because it is CHEAPER. Natural gas is three times cheaper than the cheapest renewable.

 

[Grandma]

@ westwall - In eastern Ohio/western PA/northern ByGod, reclamation does not in any way require that the mountains be put back, or that the waterways be repaired, or that trees and wildlife habitats be restored. At best, the coal companies will plant some crownvetch on the dirtpiles.

@polarbear - I mentioned Halliburton because they have their hand in a lot of Big Business energy programs and they have a strong record of failure. What you might not know is that a lot of regulations were eliminated or reduced for Halliburton and Big Oil and other energy producers during the Bush Administration. Dick Cheney owned Halliburton.


I would like to see the Grid completely updated. It's inefficient. I also strongly believe that a lot of green energy shouldn't be placed on the grid itself but used to enhance grid power coming into municipalities and private homes.

 

[Grandma]

In the center of the photo is Little Blue, a former clean lake that was surrounded by a nice little neighborhood. Residents all around there complain of arsenic and mercury in their wells now.

On the left side of the photo, that little pice of land jutting out from Ohio, right across from the earthen dam, is where my grandparents used to live.

At the top center, where the tall smokestacks are is where the Shippingport nuke joint was. When it was closed the reactor was sent to Oregon for burial.

Wouldn't hurt to read the article.

4. Lawrenceville, West Virginia

 

[Saigon]

No, I think you have missed the point. People want CHEAP energy. As the cost of renewables becomes apparent they abandon them and go back to fossil fueled power because it is CHEAPER. Natural gas is three times cheaper than the cheapest renewable.

so you categprically oppose coal?

 

[editec]

IF renewable energy was coddled and funded to the same extent the petrolum industry is, there'd be a hell of a lot more cheap renewable energy to buy.

 

[freedombecki]

Really?

So Coke really is the best tasting drink?

Nike really are better shoes than Adidas or Reebok?

Ford really do make better cars than Toyota?

Or are those decisions subjective and based as much on emotion as fact?

Coke and Pepsi cost the same. For the 35,000 that it costs to buy a Chevy Volt you can buy TWO regular gas cars that get at least 40 miles to the gallon. The Volt won't last long enough to make up that initial purchase difference. If you had an ability to think you would allready know that.

The average family is going to look at those numbers and buy the cheaper car. The cheaper car also has a better resale value than the Volt ever will because the regular car doesn't have the ecological nightmare of dealing with the dead batteries.

Real people think about those things. Real people have jobs and have to work and must maintain their homes etc. In other words real people will never buy a vehicle that is not as efficient as that it is trying to replace.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Congratulation on completely missing the point, Wall - that can't have been easy.

Emotion plays a HUGE part in consumption. People pay more to buy products from Nike or Lexus or BMW or Nikon or Apple or Moet because they have an emotional attachment to preium brands.

Do you really - honestly - think Moet Chandon is worth 4 times what an American methode chamepnois might be worth?

If so, you really are out of touch.

And this also comes into energy. People don't want coal or nuclear anymore.

They want CLEAN energy they feel safe living next door to.

Suppliers need to deal with that perception as well as the facts behind those perceptions.

Saigon, really clean energy comes from using light by day and sleeping longer nights. It would mean gathering food by hand, carrying water from the nearest river or pond into the house in a bucket borne by yourself or building an elevated pipe system designed by yourself using hollow reeds you grew from specialty seeds through your handed-down knowledge from elders of your tribe.

If that's what liberals want, indeed, it does take a village of like-minded people willing to do all that work. With all the knowledge you would need, I'm sorry it is lost or in the furthest reaches of dark libraries once you give up your electric computer. Best wishes in your lifestyle change from electricity to primitive.

Oh, and without laser-sanitized hospitals, your life expectancy will plummet to about 26 average for those who didn't understand living-in-the-raw for dummies, maybe 30 if you know someone who knows the ways of plants and wild animals, and maybe 36 if you're one of the lucky ones who got a reasonably dry cave that you have to share with bat guano falling everywhere.

Oh, and BTW, your Code Pink liberal galpals may not care for the new fur winter coats they have to use without plastics for their mouton coats.

 

[Saigon]

Freedom -

Do you here anyone out there advocating a word without electricity?

No, neither do I.

 

[flacaltenn]

Freedom -

Do you here anyone out there advocating a word without electricity?

No, neither do I.

You are advocating for sources that ALL are intermittent and statistically volatile. By definition, a mix of those will leave GAPS in supply.. It would be HELL to work in ONE of those flaky sources to a level of greater than 25%.

Largely because you can't CONTRACT for delivery of energy.. Even with Solar, there are days when production is off because of weather. It's not a ENERGY MARKET you're designing in your head --- It's more like a crapshoot --- (look it up foreigner)... '

But also because you POISON the incentives for anyone to build and maintain a perfectly good PRIMARY RELIABLE energy plant. That is forced to dump perfectly good electricity into the ground so that YOU can get your 20 minutes of wind onto the grid....

It's the engineering stupid...

 

[polarbear]

@ westwall - In eastern Ohio/western PA/northern ByGod, reclamation does not in any way require that the mountains be put back, or that the waterways be repaired, or that trees and wildlife habitats be restored. At best, the coal companies will plant some crownvetch on the dirtpiles.

@polarbear - I mentioned Halliburton because they have their hand in a lot of Big Business energy programs and they have a strong record of failure. What you might not know is that a lot of regulations were eliminated or reduced for Halliburton and Big Oil and other energy producers during the Bush Administration. Dick Cheney owned Halliburton.


I would like to see the Grid completely updated. It's inefficient. I also strongly believe that a lot of green energy shouldn't be placed on the grid itself but used to enhance grid power coming into municipalities and private homes.

I am aware of Dick Cheney`s record and of both Bush, senior & junior`s.
But they are not running for election ! Romney is! Also Obama and his supporters should stop pretending that it`s a Clinton versus Bush election choice. By the way have You forgotten about the Clinton`s Whitewater investment swindles and that back then they also owned shares in the munitions mfg. industry?...You know the same industry which made during the Vietnam war these cluster (mine) bombs that had attractive candy colored stripes on them to attract little kids and still can be found in Vietnam?

That was then and now is now.
On the point You made about how to use green energy and the power grid,...I could not agree with You more. Solar and Wind on a smaller scale for individual buildings does work and does reduce the demand on aggregate on the main grid....and that`s where the tax breaks should go to. But then again...they would be going mostly to the same kind of upper income people that Obama tries to single out as not paying their fair share.
Anyway that`s the way it played out in Germany. Only the top income earners who own Hollywood style mansions can afford to take (worth their while) advantage of that.
Now about the "Oil industry subsidies"...it wasn`t You that said so,...but I want to address that...this term is another example of left-wing spin doctoring and truth distortion.
They do not get "subsidies" like "green energy" does !
A tax break is not a subsidy !
Would You consider the tax breaks the feds allow You on Your income tax statements a "subsidy"...?
The tax breaks Oil and Gas gets for exploration is not the same as the direct & wasted more than $$ 1/2 billion that Obama government hand-out gave directly to Solyndra...not to mention the "Chevy Volt" etc.
In Canada the fed.Gov. is a bit more forthcoming than the U.S. Government and we don`t have to wait for the press to dig it out...
So we know that even in arch conservative Canada our government allowed over 6.4 times the amount of money in tax breaks or if You prefer to call it subsidies that went towards "renewable energy" than they did for Oil and Gas exploration.
I don`t have access to Your Governments spending records but I bet it would break down to about the same ratio.
Even if the tax breaks for Oil and Gas exploration is called a "subsidy" I see nothing wrong with the concept. Most of the land where Oil and Gas companies invest a lot of money exploring for these resources is "Crown Land" and in the U.S. it is owned by the federal Government.
Exploration is just another word for research and I don`t know of any case in any country where research does not get tax breaks.
It`s money well spent...much better spent than "research grants" to study how soft drinks are a health hazard in the city of New York...don`t You think...?
So why should "big Oil" not get a tax break for finding out where exactly these precious resources are located. It costs way more money to drill the exploratory wells than it does to develop it to a producing well later....and till it is all the money such a company spent for wages and materials is tied up earning no revenues.
About the coal fired plant in Lawrenceville, I have to admit that I don`t know much about this particular coal fired power plant. But in Canada it is not allowed to dump the scrubber effluent in simple ponds that allow ground seepage and then drain these into a lake or a river. We hand out prison sentences for violators that do that.And this supposedly enviro-unfriendly conservative Government tightened future regulations up even tighter that they have been so far:
Canada tightens regulations on future coal-fired power plants

Estevan Saskatchewan:

Please note, that as with Your picture in the newspaper article about Lawrenceville the "smoke" is not smoke but water vapor from the cooling towers that recycle the water. As You can see from the cooling towers, the plant is up an running...please take a glance at the flue stack..!
Is that "dirty energy"...????
Lawrenceville:

Like I said I don`t know what they are doing in Lawrenceville, but I do know what`s going on in Estevan and the other coal fired power plants in Canada...and I also do know that the laws of physics are universal and work the same in the U.S. as in Canada .
Nothing prevented President Obama to allow the same "tax breaks" he handed to Solyndra etc to the coal industry of America to bring their coal fired power plants up to international code.
At least the average factory worker or those who have to rent an apartment would benefit from it, not just people with big fancy houses...as is the case in Germany...and in Meredith NY
All Obama did is the same as what Frau Merkel did in Germany. Obama said something like..."I`ll make it so expensive for coal that it`ll go bankrupt and out of business".
Well that`s the same crap approach as the "sin taxes" for cigarette smoking. If "Joe the plumber" smokes cigarettes that cost way more because a government slaps super high taxes on cigarettes, Joe the plumber will give You an inflated bill the next time You call him...and keep right on smoking cigarettes.
The government raked in more taxes, Joe still smokes and You paid for his (more expensive) cigarettes...while Obama might promise that extra the tax $$$ will be used to hire more teachers or pay for higher public sector Union wages.
And if You think about it You`ld have realized full well, that this is what has been going on in the American energy sector also...!!!!
So who are the "evil" ones that should own up to their responsibilities...???
We cleaned up our coal industry in Canada not by 2 faced taxes, spin doctor political statements and $ fines which they would have simply passed on to us with proportionally inflated hydro-rates...
Had Obama been serious about the environment he would criminalize willful pollution like we did, and spent some tax $ for the technology R&D tax break assistance to clean up coal fired power plants.

Came back here to add one more thing which is not thread theme related but a "point of information".
@Grandma.
Like I said it was a great thing when America proved to the neo-communists that have re-surfaced since the "Iron curtain" came down how wrong they are about the United States when a black President was elected to the highest office. I stayed up all night and video taped news stations from around the globe...still have it...and also celebrated.
But I do wish to point out that "Obama care" or public health care was first instituted by none other than Adolf Hitler and is outlined in "Mein Kampf" the book he wrote while he sat in prison in my home town Landsberg.
It was a world first...and stayed exactly as Adolf Hitler has designed it until about 15 years ago. You can find all that with Google...
But 20 years ago the German Government re-designed the German health & medi-care system and then it was structured exactly the same as Romney`s system worked in Massachusetts.
It is certainly not my intention to compare ANY American President with Adolf Hitler,...but the word "Nazis" is an acronym for National Socialism...and lately the similarities if racism is factored out are alarmingly similar.

 

[IanC]

Freedom -

Do you here anyone out there advocating a word without electricity?

No, neither do I.

You are advocating for sources that ALL are intermittent and statistically volatile. By definition, a mix of those will leave GAPS in supply.. It would be HELL to work in ONE of those flaky sources to a level of greater than 25%.

Largely because you can't CONTRACT for delivery of energy.. Even with Solar, there are days when production is off because of weather. It's not a ENERGY MARKET you're designing in your head --- It's more like a crapshoot --- (look it up foreigner)... '

But also because you POISON the incentives for anyone to build and maintain a perfectly good PRIMARY RELIABLE energy plant. That is forced to dump perfectly good electricity into the ground so that YOU can get your 20 minutes of wind onto the grid....

It's the engineering stupid...

exactly.

you can either have a carbon based power plant working efficiently, or renewables and a carbon based power plant working inefficiently on partial standby. of course those conditions make it easier to compare renewables somewhat more favourably to carbon based when you have hobbled the more efficient and reliable fuel power plant.

why arent we building new nuclear power plants? it's like we stopped making improvements to automobiles in the 50's. can you imagine how much more efficient and safe nuk reactors would be now if we had 4 decades of new upgrades?

 

[eflatminor]

I feel wind, solar and wave energy have a place and must be developed.

Great. Feel free to do so WITH YOUR MONEY.