Page 124 of 127 FirstFirst ... 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 LastLast
Results 3,076 to 3,100 of 3166
  1. #3076
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Solar and wind farms have minimal cost and the output is electricity. Yes, the cost to generate and the cost of labor is more than 6x the cost. We know this because, by far, the cheapest generation of power cost is solar. It isn’t until you factor in the cost of storage, that fossil fuels become cheaper in most areas of population.
    Solar is not "by far, the cheapest generation of power." Rooftop residential and commercial is not cheap, only utility scale solar located in advantageous areas would be considered cheap, but still, it's LCOE is no better than natural gas. Storage and transmission are immense costs. All fossil fuels are cheaper in all areas of population when storage is included. And from my link:

    But in a critical and rarely noted caveat, EIA states: “The LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables because comparing them must be done carefully”[29] (emphasis added). Put differently, the LCOE calculations do not take into account the array of real, if hidden, costs needed to operate a reliable 24/7 and 365-day-per-year energy infrastructure—or, in particular, a grid that used only wind/solar.

    The LCOE considers the hardware in isolation while ignoring real-world system costs essential to supply 24/7 power. Equally misleading, an LCOE calculation, despite its illusion of precision, relies on a variety of assumptions and guesses subject to dispute, if not bias.


    For example, an LCOE assumes that the future cost of competing fuels—notably, natural gas—will rise significantly. But that means that the LCOE is more of a forecast than a calculation. This is important because a “levelized cost” uses such a forecast to calculate a purported average cost over a long period. The assumption that gas prices will go up is at variance with the fact that they have decreased over the past decade and the evidence that low prices are the new normal for the foreseeable future.[30] Adjusting the LCOE calculation to reflect a future where gas prices don’t rise radically increases the LCOE cost advantage of natural gas over wind/solar.


    An LCOE incorporates an even more subjective feature, called the “discount rate,” which is a way of comparing the value of money today versus the future. A low discount rate has the effect of tilting an outcome to make it more appealing to spend precious capital today to solve a future (theoretical) problem. Advocates of using low discount rates are essentially assuming slow economic growth.[31]


    A high discount rate effectively assumes that a future society will be far richer than today (not to mention have better technology).[32] Economist William Nordhaus’s work in this field, wherein he advocates using a high discount rate, earned him a 2018 Nobel Prize.


    An LCOE also requires an assumption about average multi-decade capacity factors, the share of time the equipment actually operates (i.e., the real, not theoretical, amount of time the sun shines and wind blows). EIA assumes, for example, 41% and 29% capacity factors, respectively, for wind and solar. But data collected from operating wind and solar farms reveal actual median capacity factors of 33% and 22%.[33] The difference between assuming a 40% but experiencing a 30% capacity factor means that, over the 20-year life of a 2-MW wind turbine, $3 million of energy production assumed in the financial models won’t exist—and that’s for a turbine with an initial capital cost of about $3 million.

    U.S. wind-farm capacity factors have been getting better but at a slow rate of about 0.7% per year over the past two decades.[34] Notably, this gain was achieved mainly by reducing the number of turbines per acre trying to scavenge moving air—resulting in average land used per unit of wind energy increasing by some 50%.

    LCOE calculations do reasonably include costs for such things as taxes, the cost of borrowing, and maintenance. But here, too, mathematical outcomes give the appearance of precision while hiding assumptions. For example, assumptions about maintenance costs and performance of wind turbines over the long term may be overly optimistic. Data from the U.K., which is further down the wind-favored path than the U.S., point to far faster degradation (less electricity per turbine) than originally forecast.[35]

    To address at least one issue with using LCOE as a tool, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently proposed the idea of a “value-adjusted” LCOE, or VALCOE, to include the elements of flexibility and incorporate the economic implications of dispatchability. IEA calculations using a VALCOE method yielded coal power, for example, far cheaper than solar, with a cost penalty widening as a grid’s share of solar generation rises.[36]


    One would expect that, long before a grid is 100% wind/solar, the kinds of real costs outlined above should already be visible. As it happens, regardless of putative LCOEs, we do have evidence of the economic impact that arises from increasing the use of wind and solar energy.


    Also, "If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?"
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#368cd81a1dc6

    There’s an issue with storage currently, everyone can agree on that. But for your arguments and the Manhattan institutes position to be correct, you have to assume that energy storage costs will not continue to drop exponentially (it will)
    That is an absurd claim backed by nothing.

    As for modern batteries, there are still promising options for significant improvements in their underlying physical chemistry. New non-lithium materials in research labs offer as much as a 200% and even 300% gain in inherent performance.[80] Such gains nevertheless don’t constitute the kinds of 10-fold or hundredfold advances in the early days of combustion chemistry.[81] Prospective improvements will still leave batteries miles away from the real competition: petroleum.

    There are no subsidies and no engineering from Silicon Valley or elsewhere that can close the physics-centric gap in energy densities between batteries and oil (Figure 5). The energy stored per pound is the critical metric for vehicles and, especially, aircraft. The maximum potential energy contained in oil molecules is about 1,500% greater, pound for pound, than the maximum in lithium chemistry.[82] That’s why the aircraft and rockets are powered by hydrocarbons. And that’s why a 20% improvement in oil propulsion (eminently feasible) is more valuable than a 200% improvement in batteries (still difficult).

    Finally, when it comes to limits, it is relevant to note that the technologies that unlocked shale oil and gas are still in the early days of engineering development, unlike the older technologies of wind, solar, and batteries. Tenfold gains are still possible in terms of how much energy can be extracted by a rig from shale rock before approaching physics limits.[83] That fact helps explain why shale oil and gas have added 2,000% more to U.S. energy production over the past decade than have wind and solar combined.[84]


  2. #3077
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    and that we go to 100% renewables (the hardest 1% is the last 1%). Your argument starts at the absolute of no bio-generation, no nuclear, etc. Nothing but wind, solar, and batteries. Only the extreme proponents of renewables are saying these things. I

    Change the argument to we are going to use nuclear reactors, geothermal, hydro, tidal, etc (depending on a given area) to produce a constant 10-30% of the grid. Then add in locally deployed solar and batteries, smart grids, transmission upgrades, scaled utility rates, and some fossil fuels where absolutely necessary and it all becomes much more feasible.
    My argument is not no bio-generation. A backbone of solar, wind, and batteries supplemented with hydro/geothermal/tidal where possible is the mainstream green energy plan. Support for nuclear is a fringe position. Nuclear is not included in the GND. Germany, the leading country in decarbonization is shutting down their nuclear plants: https://apnews.com/46c4e06013c8e14212e2f0e5bff3db6c

    You were found completely wrong on numerous obvious points which demonstrated a fundamental lack understanding of science and statistics. I’m not going to waste a ton of time disproving someone who claims to have google fu’d their way into disproving the vast majority of climatologists. Your latest graph is a fantastic example. You just blew out the scale and acted like that was informative.
    If that were true the minions would never live it down like they have with "my inability to read a graph."

    The last graph was half in jest, but a scale showing the range of temperatures humans experience is probably more appropriate and shows some needed perspective than the extreme small scale graphs that accentuate the warming.

  3. #3078
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Why do you fear this change so much, Ron?
    Are you not invested properly?
    Because I live in a country that is broke, but addicted to spending and wants to spend trillions more on an energy policy, which, if it were even feasible, would result in a minuscule reduction in CO2 induced warming.

  4. #3079
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,440
    The jury is still out on whether or not cigarettes are bad for you.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  5. #3080
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,955
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Because I live in a country that is broke, but addicted to spending and wants to spend trillions more on an energy policy, which, if it were even feasible, would result in a minuscule reduction in CO2 induced warming.
    How about if we quit wasting trillions on an outdated, harmful energy policy, and quit looking backwards?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  6. #3081
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,122
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Because I live in a country that is broke, but addicted to spending and wants to spend trillions more on an energy policy, which, if it were even feasible, would result in a minuscule reduction in CO2 induced warming.
    shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  7. #3082
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    How about if we quit wasting trillions on an outdated, harmful energy policy, and quit looking backwards?
    Because the energy system you are calling outdated is better than the system you want to implement, and we have different views on the harmful aspect.

  8. #3083
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,955
    I have a view, you have an opinion.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  9. #3084
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,440
    Tax pickups and SUV's
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  10. #3085
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    I have a view, you have an opinion.
    They are the same thing...

  11. #3086
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,955
    Wow, you actually got it!
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  12. #3087
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,670
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Tax pickups and SUV's
    Fuck that retarded thought. My truck has a much smaller carbon footprint than a tesla or hybrid.

  13. #3088
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    Fuck that retarded thought. My truck has a much smaller carbon footprint than a tesla or hybrid.
    This is just not true.

  14. #3089
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,670
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    This is just not true.
    Ok, guy.

  15. #3090
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,955
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    Fuck that retarded thought. My truck has a much smaller carbon footprint than a tesla or hybrid.
    How so?
    The batteries?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  16. #3091
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,256

    Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    Ok, guy.
    That was fast but I'm glad you get it now.

    In all seriousness I'm not a fan of taxing your truck (or anybody else's). But we do need to stop making internal combustion engine vehicles, and should provide incentives to encourage people to switch to EV's. Or better yet provide robust, easy to use and convenient electric public transport and car sharing so we don't all need our own cars.

  17. #3092
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,440
    No, fuck all your in the way pieces of shit.
    If you buy a newer vehicle that gets less than 25mpg just because you're a "truck guy" or whatever, then go fuck yourself. If you're not a rancher/contractor/something like that, you get to pay a pollution tax. Period.
    Conservatives are all about how people should face the consequences of their actions till they have to actually face them. Then is dA SeE oH tWo Is A hOaX.

    You are not your truck. You are not your gun. Grow some real self-esteem and security in your manhood that your father apparently failed to impart in you. Or, ya know, just keep funding the terrorist factory that is Saudi Arabia while helping fuck up our habitat.

    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    That was fast but I'm glad you get it now.
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post

    In all seriousness I'm not a fan of taxing your truck (or anybody else's). But we do need to stop making internal combustion engine vehicles, and should provide incentives to encourage people to switch to EV's. Or better yet provide robust, easy to use and convenient electric public transport and car sharing so we don't all need our own cars.

    Or ya know, up that gas guzzler tax that's already in place for people who insist on being a waste. We don't all need to commute to work 1 per 18mpg shitbox that can't corner, can't park, can't get around other jams in the way, etc.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  18. #3093
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,670
    Lmao! You went full Stucky, never go full Stucky. LMFAO!

  19. #3094
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,440
    Northern Idaho is a bunch of rednecks blaming everyone else for their lack of living in the present. I really don't care what you think.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  20. #3095
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,440
    And if you're a good little mouth breather, we'll get you another gun sticker for your truck so everyone can know what a big man you are!
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  21. #3096
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,859
    Yeah, that is just how we need to go about trying to make changes that will benefit everyone.
    Ooof!

  22. #3097
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ontario Canada eh
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    How so?
    The batteries?
    "Like any mining process, it is invasive, it scars the landscape, it destroys the water table and it pollutes the earth and the local wells,” said Guillermo Gonzalez, a lithium battery expert from the University of Chile, in a 2009 interview. “This isn’t a green solution – it’s not a solution at all.”
    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lith...ronment-impact
    Quote Originally Posted by SB View Post
    Welcome to hotel TGR
    Such a lovely place.

  23. #3098
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,799
    ^^ Kenny's wired article discusses the problems associated with mining lithium/cobalt/etc. along with efforts to recycle and bring new battery chemistry to market. Whenever wind/solar/batteries/etc. come up people invariably point out these issues but modern economies typically see increasing returns, increasing efficiencies, and lower unit costs over time with new technologies. We learn to do more with less.


    In contrast, hydrocarbon mining/extraction has for some time experienced diminishing returns. The energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil is becoming greater and greater over time. Mining them unleashes massive volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere, much more so than in the past.

    Canada’s oil sands, for example, are among the dirtiest fossil fuels on earth releasing vast amounts of atmospheric carbon long before the petroleum is even put to use.

    Name:  ed8ebe411341c2b751fab6408168304f.jpg
Views: 134
Size:  33.8 KB


    Overall, energy use — including things like fuel combustion and leaks from the oil and gas industry, mining, manufacturing, and the transportation sector — accounted for 81% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

    https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...s-bc-or-quebec
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 01-19-2020 at 01:37 PM.

  24. #3099
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,859
    ^^ Kenny's wired article discusses the problems associated with mining lithium/cobalt/etc. along with efforts to recycle and bring new battery chemistry to market. Whenever wind/solar/batteries/etc. come up people invariably point out these issues but modern economies typically see increasing returns, increasing efficiencies, and lower unit costs over time with new technologies. We learn to do more with less.
    An example. I was in Costco last week and saw a replacement light fixture that was about $ 21.00 with a set of LED lights that will last a damn long time and use very little electricity. 21W.

    I hated my kitchen light fixture so what the hell.

    Super easy to install, not bad looking and much better than the existing fixture. The light it provides is a much needed improvement.

    I plan on gradually replacing most of my fixtures over time.

    Multiply those changes by millions of people.
    Last edited by Bunion 2020; 01-19-2020 at 01:08 PM.
    Ooof!

  25. #3100
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion 2020 View Post
    Yeah, that is just how we need to go about trying to make changes that will benefit everyone.
    It's what we do/did with cigarettes, booze, drunk driving, etc.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •