Keystone XL pipeline

[gunrutz]

Argus, Why won't you state your position? Do you not believe in anthropogenic climate change?

If you can't accept that wind and soar have become viable options then it would make it easier to debate you if we knew what motivates you. Sometimes, in order to be good Canadians we must depart from the US political right dogma that insists that economics always comes first. In the 21st. century that's not always the case and a look at all the thousands of wind energy systems installed throughout the world should cause you to not continue to doubt!

It can't be accepted, because wind and solar are not viable alternatives, and your, blame/we are better than the americans comment in many of your posts are just ridiculous.

[overthere]

I don't need Exxon. I have the stats from what the Ontario government pays for each type of electricity generation. And until wind and solar come appreciably closer to nuclear and gas, they are simply not an option.

It's not really all about the cost of various types of energy generation, though cost is important.

A bigger factor is reliability of source. If you don't have utterly reliable 24/7 electricity to power industry and residential needs, without significant failure, brownout or or interruption your economy automatically becomes Third World. If you'd like to see firsthand what that means, go to a Third World country. If you wish, cross the ocean in an amphibious bicycle if flying in a jet fuelled aircraft is repugnant. Lack of rellaible electricioty is a prime factor in why many African nations(for example) have no industry. Why would anybody invest if they have no idea if they can run a factory?

And wind/solar are just not reliable enough to be primary sources.

[monty16]

It's not really all about the cost of various types of energy generation, though cost is important.

A bigger factor is reliability of source. If you don't have utterly reliable 24/7 electricity to power industry and residential needs, without significant failure, brownout or or interruption your economy automatically becomes Third World. If you'd like to see firsthand what that means, go to a Third World country. If you wish, cross the ocean in an amphibious bicycle if flying in a jet fuelled aircraft is repugnant. Lack of rellaible electricioty is a prime factor in why many African nations(for example) have no industry. Why would anybody invest if they have no idea if they can run a factory?

And wind/solar are just not reliable enough to be primary sources.

If you equate it to trying to a question of reliable energy you just don't understand how the electrical grid works. If you're the least bit interested in learning about it I can explain it to you. And yes, we all know that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

[Argus]

If you damage the environment you kill people. Probably a lot more people than you will kill by damaging the economy. But still, it's not one against the other, it's one carefully considered and weighed against the other.

Yes, but the damage from the latter is a century away. The damage from the former is now.

Much of the stated damage in terms of warming is irreversible anyway, so it might be better to direct money to ameliorating those effects.

[TimG]

If you equate it to trying to a question of reliable energy you just don't understand how the electrical grid works.

If you think that solar and wind are viable today then I am pretty sure that you have no clue how the grid actually works. What you think you know is misinformation spread by anti-fossil groups trying to rationalize their irrational position.

[monty16]

If you think that solar and wind are viable today then I am pretty sure that you have no clue how the grid actually works. What you think you know is misinformation spread by anti-fossil groups trying to rationalize their irrational position.

We were talking about RELIABLE, not viable and the conversation wasn't with you. But join in if you wish and address the question of reliable energy. When you're finished I can inform you on how the grid works if you care to learn about it. Here's a hint, providing you really are interested and not just trying to disrupt: the wind doesn't always blow but it blows always somewhere in N. America. likewise with the sun shining. And fwiw, likewise with coal fired and gas fired power plants!

[TimG]

Here's a hint, providing you really are interested and not just trying to disrupt: the wind doesn't always blow but it blows always somewhere in N. America. likewise with the sun shining. And fwiw, likewise with coal fired and gas fired power plants!

Here is does of reality: energy transmission loses a lot of energy and costs a lot of money. That means it makes no difference that wind blows in Northern Ontario if that power is needed in Toronto because there is no way to get the power to Toronto. That is why the vast majority of power plants are close to where it is consumed. The only exceptions are hydro dams where a single source producing enough power to make a long transmission line viable but such economics do not apply to diffuse sources like wind or solar.

The idea that large a percentage of power consumed can be shunted around the continent as the weather changes is laughable.

Edited May 13, 2014 by TimG

[monty16]

Here is does of reality: energy transmission loses a lot of energy and costs a lot of money. That means it makes no difference that wind blows in Northern Ontario if that power is needed in Toronto because there is no way to get the power to Toronto. That is why the vast majority of power plants are close to where it is consumed. The only exceptions are hydro dams where a single source producing enough power to make a long transmission line viable but such economics do not apply to diffuse sources like wind or solar.

The idea that large a percentage of power consumed can be shunted around the continent as the weather changes is laughable.

You don't understand how the grid works, and worse, you don't want to know. You're just opposed to wind and solar power for some illogical reason that you won't talk about. I suspect that it's rightist politics and that is the politics of greed. Didn't Milty Friedman tell us it's about greed?

[TimG]

You don't understand how the grid works, and worse, you don't want to know.

Given my work I am pretty sure I know more about how the grid works than you ever will. I would be happy to explain how it really works but I suspect you don't want to hear about because you would rather live in a world of greenie delusions.

[monty16]

Given my work I am pretty sure I know more about how the grid works than you ever will. I would be happy to explain how it really works but I suspect you don't want to hear about because you would rather live in a world of greenie delusions.

You're just assuming that I don't work in the electrical/instrument field so chances are you don't know more than me. And when you tried to say that power is less efficiently transmitted over great distances if it's not wind/solar, you really blew it. Power goes to the grid via a local transforming station and it's all transmitted from there at high voltage. Voltages varying from one jurisdiction to another sometimes. 138 k.v. A.C., 240 kv A.C., 500 k.v. D.C., and so on. So go ahead and tell me all about it Tim! Let's see how much more you don't know?

[TimG]

And when you tried to say that power is less efficiently transmitted over great distances if it's not wind/solar, you really blew it.

Nope. You just don't understand how expensive it is to build networks over large areas that feed many small sources into a high voltage transmission line. These costs are not there when you have a single source like a large hydro dam. The cost gets even more prohibitive when you then consider that most of the feeder grids will normally only carry a fraction of their rated capacity because most of the time the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. The same excess capacity problem exists for the high voltage line itself. That is why I say the economics that work for hydro dams will not work for diffuse intermittent energy sources.

Last thing that pretty much kills any argument you might have: if it was possible to economically deploy solar/wind then they would be deployed without subsidies and/or renewable mandates because no one wants to pay for fuel costs.

Edited May 13, 2014 by TimG

[monty16]

Nope. You just don't understand how expensive it is to build networks over large areas that feed many small sources into a high voltage transmission line. These costs are not there when you have a single source like a large hydro dam. The cost gets even more prohibitive when you then consider that most of the feeder grids will normally only carry a fraction of their rated capacity because most of the time the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. The same excess capacity problem exists for the high voltage line itself. That is why I say the economics that work for hydro dams will not work for diffuse intermittent energy sources.

Last thing that pretty much kills any argument you might have: if it was possible to economically deploy solar/wind then they would be deployed without subsidies and/or renewable mandates because no one wants to pay for fuel costs.

Gee, you really, really don't get it Tim. I can transmit power from my house with a minimal amount of equipment. And I can actually do it at 120/240 single phase and there are actually homes that do it in areas where it is permitted. Ya really think that it isn't that easy for wind and solar installations to do it? Really? And for what it's worth Tim, it goes out of a home at that low voltage and gets transformed to 13.8 k.v. on that steel box thingy up on the pole. Then it goes about 2 miles to my local sub station where they magically make it 240 k.v. Abracadabra Tim! You show us your stuff now Tim and calculate the line drop o.k? I'll check your work and grade you on it. It's a test!

Tim, you've started to bark up the wrong tree this time. It's my field of expertise and I can tell right now that it certainly isn't yours.

[TimG]

Gee, you really, really don't get it Tim. I can transmit power from my house with a minimal amount of equipment.

And how much power can your house produce? 10 KWh/day if you lucky? peanuts. To get a useful amount of power you have to have thousands of houses connected back to the grid and that minimal cost per house suddenly becomes quite prohibitive.

Also you are confusing absolute cost vs. cost per KWh. When it comes to power production what matters is cost per KWh and I bet your "minimal cost" for connecting your house is a actually a huge cost per KWh.

The more you talk the more you show that you may understand how power moves through the grid but you know absolutely nothing about the economics of building and maintaining a grid which makes whatever knowledge you think you have useless.

Edited May 13, 2014 by TimG

[monty16]

And how much power can your house produce? 10 KWh/day if you lucky? peanuts. To get a useful amount of power you have to have thousands of houses connected back to the grid and that minimal cost per house suddenly becomes quite prohibitive.

Also you are confusing absolute cost vs. cost per KWh. When it comes to power production what matters is cost per KWh and I bet your "minimal cost" for connecting your house is a actually a huge cost per KWh.

The more you talk the more you show that you may understand how power moves through the grid but you know absolutely nothing about the economics of building and maintaining a grid which makes whatever knowledge you think you have useless.

So now you want to play the economics card eh Tim. You wouldn't do a lick better with me on that so I won't even entertain you further on this issue. Let's just hope lots of your friends on this forum read this stuff between us and notice how you have been stumbling around in circles.

Get on that line drop calculation alright? That is going to be what it takes to get me to pay you more attention.

[TimG]

So now you want to play the economics card eh Tim. You wouldn't do a lick better with me on that so I won't even entertain you further on this issue.

Sure whatever you want. But we both know the real reason you don't want to discuss it further is the economics does not work once you factor in all of the costs of compensating for the unreliability. This is true even if you come up with some contrived example to support your case.

If the economics did work then people would be using it yet from Germany to Japan we see governments backing away from renewables as they realize the true costs. Coal consumption is way up in Germany specifically because renewables cannot possibly close the gap left by nuclear.

Edited May 13, 2014 by TimG

[overthere]

And how much power can your house produce? 10 KWh/day if you lucky? peanuts. To get a useful amount of power you have to have thousands of houses connected back to the grid and that minimal cost per house suddenly becomes quite prohibitive.

Also you are confusing absolute cost vs. cost per KWh. When it comes to power production what matters is cost per KWh and I bet your "minimal cost" for connecting your house is a actually a huge cost per KWh.

The more you talk the more you show that you may understand how power moves through the grid but you know absolutely nothing about the economics of building and maintaining a grid which makes whatever knowledge you think you have useless.

With respect, none of that matters unless every producer can guarantee they will produce a specific amount of electricity at specific times.

Not hope to produce, want to produce, or would feel really good about their contribution if only the sun wopuld shine and the wind would blow- but guarantee to produce.

Lets say the total demand of industry and residential use is a system capacity or demand figure of 100%. What with everyday problems like storms/outages, scheduled maintenace to large generators, line losses, and unplanned breakdowns of generating stations you must have a excess generating capacity that takes the supply requirement to 110% of total system demand.

Lets say plenty of ordinary folk buy solar and wind systems and using net metering sell it back to the grid. Lets say they can meet 10% of the required grid supply amount with small scale renewable energy generation. How does that affect the number?

The answer is: not at all really. You still must have 110% available 24/7. Period. That means that the 10% renewable added is simply rediundant generation. Its actually worse, since the increased amount of generation inevitably means additional transmission capacity- also not needed- must be added to the system.

So adding in the 10% provided by renewables would not affect the building of big nuclear, coal, gas or hydro plants at all.(unless there is a dramatic decrease in consumption)

Ah say the proponents- the people using net netering to add 10% also take away that 10% from the 100% need......

But that does not work either unless the net metering providers also make a second cast iron guarantee: that they never, ever buy a speck of energy fromn the grid they feed. if they use any, then you need the same 110% non-renewable generating capacity.

It is a really expensive redundancy.

[TimG]

It is a really expensive redundancy.

The premise that is being put forward is you can get this redundancy by building enough renewables across a large geographic area. I am arguing that the cost of building out such a large network is incredibly expensive and not remotely plausible. Edited May 13, 2014 by TimG

[overthere]

And I agree.

[monty16]

And I agree.

You shouldn't. He's trying to say that even a small amount such as 10% wind or solar would not have an impact on the amount of fossil fuel burnt to produce power. That's not even worth arguing because it's patently false. For every kwh of power produced by green sources, it's kwh of power that isn't produced by fossil fuels.

Tim has already been soundly defeated in his technical argument and so now he's trying to take it to an economic argument. That won't work either because it's an attitudinal problem with Tim's reasoning. ie. He's as much trying to tell us that power generation can't be throttled back at times when solar or wind are supplying power to the grid. It's as if a coalfired generator can't idle back to half speed and use less energy, hence pollute less.

Green sources of energy are entirely appropriate from an economics standpoint. The reason they are is because we are able to factor in the damage being done to the environment if the new technology of green is neglected.

However, if one doesn't believe in climate change and anthropogenic global warming, none of the truth is going to make sense to them. If they could be so honest as to admit they don't believe then we could start to take their arguments seriously and concede some of their points, based on their dinosaur approach alone.

They opposed emission control devices on cars too! Get behind a collector car of the 50's and 60's and it brings home the facts in one breathe of thick air!

[overthere]

He's trying to say that even a small amount such as 10% wind or solar would not have an impact on the amount of fossil fuel burnt to produce power.

It would make no difference at all on the amount of hydro/nuclear/coal/fossil fuel plants that would need to be built and run.

For every kwh of power produced by green sources, it's kwh of power that isn't produced by fossil fuels.

what on earth are you talking about?

He's as much trying to tell us that power generation can't be throttled back at times when solar or wind are supplying power to the grid. It's as if a coalfired generator can't idle back to half speed and use less energy, hence pollute less.

I noticed you have not tried to refute the argument that no matter what you generate via wind or solar, you still need to have 100%+ capacity available with nuclear/coal. etc etc That means you have to build them for billions, and you also have to build all the associated transmission lines at more billions. And no, you cannot turn on massive genertaing systems like you turn a light switch off and on.

[TimG]

He's as much trying to tell us that power generation can't be throttled back at times when solar or wind are supplying power to the grid. It's as if a coalfired generator can't idle back to half speed and use less energy, hence pollute less.

Actually coal fired plants CAN'T be easily throttled back because the wind starts to blow. That is why Ontario often finds itself selling excess wind power at a loss to the states. You need a natural gas plant if you want that kind of flexibility. But even then natural gas plants that are constantly changing their output run less efficiently than those that run at a constant output which means they consume more fossil fuels than they otherwise would.

In Texas the wind operators periodically have to pay the grid operators to take the power. They do this because they don't get subsidies unless the grid operators take the power which means the price is slightly less than the government subsidies.

Edited May 13, 2014 by TimG

[monty16]

Tim, How's that line drop calculation goin so far? For our purposes we can consider the wire sizes to be standard, the distance from my house to the steel box thingy that the wires go into is 60', and the distance to the substation is exactly 2 miles to make it less complicated. We can consider that the power factor is unity and the H.V. lines are standard resibential sized.

After you accomplish this very elementary exercise correctly I'll have no choice but to resume talking to you as the expert!

If you require any help with Ohm's law and other elementary equations you'll need then just let me know. LOL

Phhhhhtttttt! That's not me mocking you, that's the sound that's made when you get your wires crossed.

[TimG]

After you accomplish this very elementary exercise correctly I'll have no choice but to resume talking to you as the expert!

You are completely clueless. Do you really believe that being able to connect a house to the grid has anything to do with managing an entire network?

As I said before: if solar or wind would not need subsidies if they were even close to cost competitive once you factor in all of the infrastructure needed to deal with variability. The cost of complex network of underused power lines is one such cost. The cost of backup generation is another.

Edited May 14, 2014 by TimG

[gunrutz]

So appearently line loss isn't a real thing, or if it is we just have to live within the solar or wind farm that while it can only produce power part time, and is of course more expensive, and for which no technology allows for storage of unused power, which again demands traditional sources when the wind doesn't blow, forcing a traditional redundancy of 100% capacity, in effect making the green sources pointless, except as a feel good, we are saving a tiny bit of fossil fuels today, at incredible cost to the end user, which hurts our economy while other places that couldn't care less about some of this pollyanna green bullshit offer cheap electricity to manufacturers moving good jobs away.

Sounds good.

People who truly, truly beleive that wind or solar can currently provide anything approaching a significant amount of electrical generation while at the same time being economically feasible, simply have no understanding of the subject.

[monty16]

I think the biggest problem is that those who oppose green energy for reasons pertaining to their own wallets are able to convince people such as those on this forum who are like Tim and just don't understand how it all works. And the problem is just compounded when they are so thoroughly propagandized into not accepting the truths. They just don't want to know.

Well, I do know because it's my area of expertise and I'm here to explain it. Those who maintain that 10% redundancy is necessary with solar/wind just don't understand that it's already necessary. Those that can't understand that every KWH of power produced by green sources doesn't count in replacing fossil fuel based energy are just plain ignorant of the math involved.

So let's have at it then. And Tim, if you want in then don't start parroting old arguments in which you have already been defeated.