Results 1,151 to 1,175 of 3644
-
09-06-2019, 12:03 PM #1151Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Unfortunately its not easy.
"The Harvard University researchers also concluded that the transition to wind or solar power in the United States would require 5 to 20 times more land than previously thought"
"For wind, the average power density—the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant—was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some energy experts because most of the latter estimates failed to consider the turbine-atmosphere interaction. For an isolated wind turbine, the interactions do not matter. For wind farms that are more than 5 to 10 kilometers deep, the interactions have a major impact on the power density."
"For solar energy, the average power density (measured in watts per meter squared) is 10 times higher than wind power, but also much lower than estimates by leading energy experts, including the U.S. Department of Energy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
-
09-06-2019, 12:03 PM #1152
-
09-06-2019, 12:30 PM #1153Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-06-2019, 12:33 PM #1154
-
09-06-2019, 04:03 PM #1155
Even this is not true, of course. Where is your source for this?
"UK Government energy generation statistics show rise in renewables"
https://www.power-technology.com/new...on-statistics/
Statistics from the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) indicate that the UK’s energy supply increasingly comes from renewable sources at the expense of fossil fuels.
The figures show that in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018 renewables formed 37.1% of the country’s energy supply, a 7% increase on Q4 in 2017. This makes renewables the UK’s second biggest source of energy, behind gas at 37.9%, having fallen from 40% in Q4 of 2017.
Nuclear power fell from 18.1% at the end of 2017 to 16.5% in 2018. Low-carbon sources in Total reached 53.6% in the quarter, just above the 2018 average of 52.8%.
Coal continued to decline, going from 9.1% in Q4 of 2017 to 5.7% in Q4 2018 while oil and gas remained stable at 2.7%. Total electricity generation decreased by 1.4% from 339 terawatt (TWh) hours in 2017 to 334TWh in 2018.
Since 2008, energy obtained from renewables has risen by over 400% from 22TWh to 111TWh whilst coal has declined by 86% since 2008, falling from 124 terawatt hours (TWh) to just 17TWh.
A BEIS spokesperson said: “We continue to lead the world in clean growth, going further than any other G7 nation by cutting our emissions by over 40 per cent since 1990, whilst growing our economy.
“The UK has already gone more than 833 hours without coal this year, and we are investing £2.5 billion in low carbon innovation through our modern Industrial Strategy.
“All this means the UK is firmly on track to meet its target to phase out coal completely by 2025.”
The BEIS also tweeted: “The latest quarterly stats from our major power generators show the UK is continuing to move to a cleaner, greener energy mix.”
-
09-06-2019, 04:52 PM #1156Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Apologies for my numbers being a couple percentage points different from yours. They come from a link in your article: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-uk-...coal-right-now
-
09-06-2019, 09:31 PM #1157
Go away you lying sack of shit
"The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves."
-
09-06-2019, 09:32 PM #1158
-
09-06-2019, 09:33 PM #1159
-
09-07-2019, 08:12 AM #1160Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Vermont
- Posts
- 1,492
How many times do we have to prove you wrong before you go away? Another flat out wrong statement. The McNeil wood chip plant is more expensive to run than wind, solar, and hydro. The plant is an incredibly inefficient source of energy and the air scrubbers required on the stack are expensive. When we are able to eliminate the plant, costs will drop.
Headed down today to drop off a trailer load from pruning. I'll use the electricity later while soaking in the hot tub.
-
09-07-2019, 09:13 AM #1161Been there, skied that.
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Loveland, Chair 9.
- Posts
- 4,911
well, maybe we will finally get some conclusion with the next solar cycle:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/so...or-exploration
"The Sun's activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle. The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025."
if its the lowest solar cycle in 200 years and there is still warming, the alarmists may finally have won the argument; if cooling occurs; the deniers may be undeniable.
(i'm hoping it cools, regardless; its September and still dam too dam hot)TGR forums cannot handle SkiCougar !
-
09-07-2019, 09:26 AM #1162
“We choose to go to the moon not because it's easy, but because it's hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
--John Fitzgerald Kennedy, speech at Rice University, September 12, 1962
-
09-07-2019, 10:24 AM #1163Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-07-2019, 10:26 AM #1164Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-07-2019, 10:31 AM #1165Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
The thing you don't seem to understand is the wind doesn't blow all the time, and the sun isn't always out (especially in winter in VT). You need something to provide electricity when wind and solar aren't providing. Hydro can't supply the demand on its own, so without your wood chip plant you would need massive storage system which is going to cost a whole lot more money compared to just keeping your wood chip plant.
If the McNeil wood chip plant is so expensive why does it even exist?
-
09-07-2019, 10:56 AM #1166
-
09-07-2019, 10:58 AM #1167
-
09-07-2019, 11:07 AM #1168
Sigh.....
Put on ignore
Do not reply
Troll leaves to find other suckers who will engage.I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
09-07-2019, 11:35 AM #1169Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Posts
- 10,525
-
09-07-2019, 11:47 AM #1170
Probably the right call. But I'm still unconvinced he's a troll per se. He's definitely trolling, sure, but it's the trolling of a clueless true believer.
He's more like a Monty Python Black Knight.
Victory is mine......
Loses both arms and legs
"Alright! We'll call it a draw."
-
09-07-2019, 11:48 AM #1171
Cross post, just for Ron.
I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
09-07-2019, 11:53 AM #1172
-
09-07-2019, 12:40 PM #1173Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-07-2019, 12:45 PM #1174Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-07-2019, 01:11 PM #1175Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
For as much shit as I get in this thread does anyone care to make a list of things I got wrong in this thread? Off the top of my head I can think of:
1. Sea level rise argument with neufox.
2. The Easterbrook GISS graph is incorrect. Greenland was not as warm in the past as that graph showed, but it still had many periods warmer than today over the past 10,000 years.
3. I suppose some might say my criticism of MultiVerse's authoritative statements on the global synchronous warmth experienced today compared to the past are wrong. I wouldn't agree.
Anything else?
I've disproved a lot more of the true believer's positions than my positions have been disproved.
Bookmarks