Page 23 of 94 FirstFirst ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 2341
  1. #551
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominic.../#5f882b6ee8ce

    The cost of renewable energy has tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power plants, according to new data released today.

    Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of renewable energy, at an average of $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh), but the average cost of developing new power plants based on onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass or geothermal energy is now usually below $0.10/kWh. Not far behind that is offshore wind, which costs close to $0.13/kWh. . .

    These figures are contained in the latest Renewable Power Generation Costs report, released today by the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an inter-governmental body with around 160 members.

    The most attractive renewable energy sources, from a cost perspective, are onshore wind and solar PV. IRENA says onshore wind costs of $0.03-0.04/kWh are now possible in places with good natural resources and the right regulatory and institutional frameworks.

    It also points out that new solar PV projects in countries such as Chile, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have seen a levelized cost of electricity of as low as $0.03/kWh – helped by the fact that governments have been holding competitive bidding processes when launching contracts to develop new power plants.

  2. #552
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    If wind and solar are so expensive, how did LA manage to sign a contract for PV + battery for less than the cost of natural gas?


    Besides contributing to global warming, gas-fired power generation is just too expensive. In the industry, it’s well-known that solar energy is about half the cost of gas generation, and that solar plus storage is more reliable and still cheaper than a new gas-fired plant. But that fact seems like it’s almost a secret in the energy and climate debate in Washington, D.C.
    ...

    We can build dispatchable large-scale solar plus storage power plants for less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. And gas peakers are just the first of the gas power plants to be economically obsolete. In sunnier parts of the country, solar plus storage can beat the costs of combined-cycle gas plants.
    http://labusinessjournal.com/news/20...-clean-energy/

    New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear

    Los Angeles Power and Water officials have struck a deal on the largest and cheapest solar + battery-storage project in the world, at prices that leave fossil fuels in the dust and may relegate nuclear power to the dustbin.

    Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city’s electricity demand at 1.997˘/kwh for solar energy and 1.3˘ for power from batteries.

    “This is the lowest solar-photovoltaic price in the United States,” said James Barner, the agency’s manager for strategic initiatives, “and it is the largest and lowest-cost solar and high-capacity battery-storage project in the U.S. and we believe in the world today. So this is, I believe, truly revolutionary in the industry.”

    The solar price is half the estimated cost of power from a new natural gas plant.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm.../#49f390a95971

  3. #553
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,975
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You only have to look one page back to see that you don't know what you are talking about. neufox47: "Video is obviously from a moron and not a scientist. Yes most ice loss is from calving not “melt” so therefore melt doesn’t exceed new snowfall."



    Do you realize that there is a big difference in the cost between solar farms and solar on roofs? The levelized cost of energy for residential solar roof is 4-7x higher than that of utility scale. So that means you are back to the land use problem. And not all land is created equal when it comes to solar.

    We don't know if the current degradation claims of .4% annually will hold up, since it will take 30 years to find out. A .8% degradation rate will mean that in 25 years the panel will be operating at 82.5% of year 1. To replace that 18% you either need more land, or need to replace.

    All of this is ignoring the real costs of storage and transmission.

    On batteries:
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

    On solar waste:
    https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/a...r-waste-crisis
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#69749673121c

    If solar and wind are so cheap why are they making electricity so expensive?
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#4b34217e1dc6





    Man are you dumb. D.. U.. M.. B..

    The map he is using is called surface mass balance. Study your hooked on phonics, maybe follow along with a pencil pointing at words and go slowly. Maybe you can comprehend the below sentence which is literally the first thing on the surface mass balance site.

    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
    The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet gains and loses mass on a daily basis. This is known as the surface mass balance. It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.

  4. #554
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Joisey
    Posts
    1,577
    Originally Posted by old goat View Post

    In the second place, the technology exists today for a zero carbon economy. The technology also exists for us all to have flying cars (but not autonomous flying cars) but we don't have them. The issues are cost, politics, and the willingness of all of us to drastically change our lives and to have far more government control of our lives than we have now.


    Bingo. This is exactly why we will never move away from carbon sources, regardless if you believe global warming is a problem or not.

  5. #555
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,994
    This is exactly why we will never move away from carbon sources, regardless if you believe global warming is a problem or not.
    Never?

    Never is an extremely long time. Maybe not in my life and I don't know your age but it will happen.

  6. #556
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Never?

    Never is an extremely long time. Maybe not in my life and I don't know your age but it will happen.
    I for sure lean to the never in my lifetime, and maybe not even in my toddler nephew's life.

    For example, durango-residents-call-for-100%-renewable-energy-by-2050

    [Dozens of area residents are asking the Durango City Council to set a goal of powering the city with 100% renewable energy by 2050, even if there isn’t a clear path to achieve the objective.]

  7. #557
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Joisey
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Never?

    Never is an extremely long time. Maybe not in my life and I don't know your age but it will happen.
    It's kinda like if a tree falls in the forest. If it's not in my lifetime it didn't happen and doesn't matter. but yeah it will be several generations at least IMO.

  8. #558
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,994
    Quote Originally Posted by SKIP INTRO View Post
    I for sure lean to the never in my lifetime, and maybe not even in my toddler nephew's life.

    For example, durango-residents-call-for-100%-renewable-energy-by-2050

    [Dozens of area residents are asking the Durango City Council to set a goal of powering the city with 100% renewable energy by 2050, even if there isn’t a clear path to achieve the objective.]
    The optimist in me disagrees. Think of how far some technologies have advanced in your lifetime if there is a market.

    Suddenly the idea of putting a cost on carbon or pollutants makes a lot more sense if you have to pay for the impact of your actions. And just as suddenly that Free Market that so many love to sing about has reason to advance what are currently unpalatable (expensive) alternatives.

  9. #559
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JongDoe View Post
    Originally Posted by old goat View Post

    In the second place, the technology exists today for a zero carbon economy. The technology also exists for us all to have flying cars (but not autonomous flying cars) but we don't have them. The issues are cost, politics, and the willingness of all of us to drastically change our lives and to have far more government control of our lives than we have now.


    Bingo. This is exactly why we will never move away from carbon sources, regardless if you believe global warming is a problem or not.
    This is what the fossil fuel industry wants us to believe - that switching will be very expensive and will allow lots of government control of our lives.

    It just isn't true. Utility scale wind and solar are cheaper then gas and coal. Yes, putting in infrastructure for smart grids and EV charging will cost money, bit so does drilling for oil or coal.

    Economists love the idea of putting a price on Carbon. Consumers don't as they don't want costs to go up. So don't do it. The market has failed to address climate change so that now we need to get to net zero emissions quickly. Regulations that require 100% renewables is part of the answer; renewables are cheap.

    About the point that we would need to give government more control of our lives, this also isn't true. Yes, government will set industrial policy, like it has since our founding. They will say you can't drive a gas car you must drive a more powerful, sportier EV that is cheaper to drive and requires less maintenance. But you can still drive a car. You won't heart your home with gas but your home will be comfortable and costs will be low.

    If we stop giving billions of dollars of subsidies to fossil fuel companies we'll
    Have money to begin the transition.

    The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action.

  10. #560
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    The optimist in me disagrees. Think of how far some technologies have advanced in your lifetime if there is a market.
    I agree with your disagreement. My point or takeaway from above quote is "dozens" and "asking" city council is probably not enough to achieve an objective clear path. It's a start. Let's check back in a year or two and see where they are.

  11. #561
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,288
    Would you guys stop acting like the Los Angeles Solar plant is an answer for anywhere but LA, Vegas, and Arizona? Jesus it's surrounded by mountains followed by a fucking DESERT. So it's sunny, wide open to development, and out of sight. Wonderful.

    Now try scaling that power need by a factor of 3 for the NYC Metro area with literally zero open space to cover with solar panels that isn't already in heavy use by agriculture or Nature preserves. Think of your solar wealth equivalent to our potable water wealth.

  12. #562
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    If wind and solar are so expensive, how did LA manage to sign a contract for PV + battery for less than the cost of natural gas?



    http://labusinessjournal.com/news/20...-clean-energy/

    New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear



    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm.../#49f390a95971
    You can't translate this cost onto a 100% clean renewable future. This is for only 7% of LA's power, and the batteries only have 4 hours of storage so it still needs carbon backups. To be serious about replacing fossil fuels the storage needs to be closer to 4 days. Also notice this project has a 30% subsidy. I know this isn't the greatest source, but its the most detailed cost breakdown I can find: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/...u-do-the-math/

  13. #563
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    As for the article itself, it reinforces what I believe, that the problem is not technological but sociopolitiical and economic. The key sentence is in the last section-- "Jacobson and his colleagues said that a remaining challenge of implementing their roadmaps is that they require coordination across political boundaries." We can't even cooperate within our political boundary.
    The reason we have a sociopolitical and economic problem is because of the technology. If the tech was there it would be an easy sell economically and politically.

  14. #564
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Man are you dumb. D.. U.. M.. B..

    The map he is using is called surface mass balance. Study your hooked on phonics, maybe follow along with a pencil pointing at words and go slowly. Maybe you can comprehend the below sentence which is literally the first thing on the surface mass balance site.

    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
    The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet gains and loses mass on a daily basis. This is known as the surface mass balance. It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.
    You said, "...most ice loss is from calving, not melt...."

    From: https://link.springer.com/article/10...641-017-0070-1

    "In combination, the breakaway of icebergs (calving) and submarine melting at marine-terminating glaciers account for between one third and one half of the mass annually discharged from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the ocean."

  15. #565
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The reason we have a sociopolitical and economic problem is because of the technology. If the tech was there it would be an easy sell economically and politically.
    So, basically, your whole argument against renewable energy is that trying is the first step towards failure?

  16. #566
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,265
    Just for giggles go add up the 5 largest solar plants in the world. Only like 2 are at full operating capacity. I gave benefit of doubt and added the full operating capacity (most won'te achieved forany years). Combined they produce just over 5000megawatts of electricity a state like California has used 50,270 megawatts in a DAY (July 24 2006). The top 5 take up about 100sq miles of land. We simply aren't going to cut it with solar.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
    http://www.firsttracksonline.com

    I wish i could be like SkiFishBum

  17. #567
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    We simply aren't going to cut it with solar.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
    And that is why Bill Gates is putting a lot of money into developing alternative methods of nuclear energy production. We need that too.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  18. #568
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,265
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    And that is why Bill Gates is putting a lot of money into developing alternative methods of nuclear energy production. We need that too.
    I am 100% for alternative sources of energy to move away from fossil fuels, however betting on "all in" solar is never going to work. Soon we will need nearly every square inch of land for humans. We keep people alive longer and keep reproducing. We need a plague or something.
    http://www.firsttracksonline.com

    I wish i could be like SkiFishBum

  19. #569
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,994
    Solar is one piece, wind another, Nukes another.

    One thing that gets skipped is increasing efficiency. The GND is excoriated yet part of the proposal is to increase building efficiency to reduce energy usage, to me that is a freaking huge opportunity that should be easy to get going if only the shouters would STFU and think about the idea critically.

    How much energy could we save by making as many old and leaky buildings much less energy intensive?

    Until some brainiac comes up with the ultimate answer energy will come down to a broad set of sources.

  20. #570
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    I am 100% for alternative sources of energy to move away from fossil fuels, however betting on "all in" solar is never going to work.
    I don't know anyone that is going "all in" on solar. But there are a LOT of people that are advocates of going all in on carbon-free. Which seems like a prudent direction to take.

    Soon we will need nearly every square inch of land for humans.
    While this seems like a simple answer, the reality if the math is done appears to be a bit less alarming: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/

    We keep people alive longer and keep reproducing. We need a plague or something.
    Yeah - if we just ignore the whole shitshow, we're going to see large numbers of humans dying, and it will be of our own doing.

  21. #571
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    5,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Solar is one piece, wind another, Nukes another.

    One thing that gets skipped is increasing efficiency. The GND is excoriated yet part of the proposal is to increase building efficiency to reduce energy usage, to me that is a freaking huge opportunity that should be easy to get going if only the shouters would STFU and think about the idea critically.

    How much energy could we save by making as many old and leaky buildings much less energy intensive?

    Until some brainiac comes up with the ultimate answer energy will come down to a broad set of sources.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    I don't know anyone that is going "all in" on solar. But there are a LOT of people that are advocates of going all in on carbon-free. Which seems like a prudent direction to take.



    While this seems like a simple answer, the reality if the math is done appears to be a bit less alarming: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/


    Yeah - if we just ignore the whole shitshow, we're going to see large numbers of humans dying, and it will be of our own doing.
    And this.

    Funny to read all over the internets comments about how Windmills don't spin all of the time and therefore they are worthless. All the right wing talking points handed down to the masses by the dumbasses running the right wing talk shop - including the orange dictator wannabee.

    The trolls on here are only slightly more nuanced. Gets so tiring.

  22. #572
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The reason we have a sociopolitical and economic problem is because of the technology. If the tech was there it would be an easy sell economically and politically.
    This is probably your biggest lie yet.

    Much of the market value of fossil fuel companies is based on their vast holdings of oil, gas and coal reserves. If we move away from fossil fuels, these reserves are worthless and the value of these companies disappears.

    These companies also have billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure (wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, gas stations, etc) that become stranded assets if we move to clean energy. I think they care more about this than the tech needed to go clean.

    Follow the money and you see why people like Ron Johnson lie and try to confuse.

    Listening to the scientists and getting off of fossil fuels is an existential threat to fossil fuel companies. They are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening, even if it means allowing the climate to tip into chaos.

    When they tell us how awful it will be to go to zero emissions, remember that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Who do you think funds the deniers?

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change

  23. #573
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,265
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    This is probably your biggest lie yet.

    Much of the market value of fossil fuel companies is based on their vast holdings of oil, gas and coal reserves. If we move away from fossil fuels, these reserves are worthless and the value of these companies disappears.

    These companies also have billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure (wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, gas stations, etc) that become stranded assets if we move to clean energy. I think they care more about this than the tech needed to go clean.

    Follow the money and you see why people like Ron Johnson lie and try to confuse.

    Listening to the scientists and getting off of fossil fuels is an existential threat to fossil fuel companies. They are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening, even if it means allowing the climate to tip into chaos.

    When they tell us how awful it will be to go to zero emissions, remember that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Who do you think funds the deniers?

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change
    Too big to fail? What would getting rid of all those companies do to the economy? I'm seriously asking.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
    http://www.firsttracksonline.com

    I wish i could be like SkiFishBum

  24. #574
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    They'd be replaced by other companies stepping in to produce clean energy. Investment will continue. But yes, by refusing to change business models they are putting the climate and the economy at risk.

  25. #575
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,856
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    They'd be replaced by other companies stepping in to produce clean energy. Investment will continue. But yes, by refusing to change business models they are putting the climate and the economy at risk.
    Agreed. Their lobbyist will be mother fuckers to overcome. Ban lobbying is a great place to start along with meaningful term limits (2) to get all the bought and paid for politicians out.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

Posting Permissions

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