overthere Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 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. Nicely summarized. Our modern industrial economy and the comfortable lifestyle we all enjoy is entirely dependent today on an utterly reliable source of electricity. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
overthere Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 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. You keep demonstrating , with statements like this, that you simply do not understand the nature of electricity generation, transmission or distribution and the required capacities of each in a modern industrial society.. TimG and I have explained the absolute need for redundancy in a system that produces power from 'reliable' sources like nuclear, hydro, coal, or natural gas. You can feed in some juice from unreliable sources like wind or solar, but you still must have the base system+redundancy in place at all times. So, those unreliable sources are just additional redundancy, and vastly more expensive redundancy to boot. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
monty16 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) You keep demonstrating , with statements like this, that you simply do not understand the nature of electricity generation, transmission or distribution and the required capacities of each in a modern industrial society.. TimG and I have explained the absolute need for redundancy in a system that produces power from 'reliable' sources like nuclear, hydro, coal, or natural gas. You can feed in some juice from unreliable sources like wind or solar, but you still must have the base system+redundancy in place at all times. So, those unreliable sources are just additional redundancy, and vastly more expensive redundancy to boot. You need to go back over the posts of mine and Tim's and see how his arguments were completely demolished. And btw, if you are going to try to hold yourself up as an expert then do the line drop calculation that I asked Tim to do when he tried to set himself up as an expert. So how about this for my opening bid? About 50% of all energy needs could be supplied to the N.America grid by green and renewable energy sources which would include solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and others you will possibly discover in this link. The other 50% will be supplied by hydro power which is also sustainable but not entirely green for reasons I can help to explain to you. We will then require a 10% +- redundancy which can be supplied with your choice of non-renewable sources or nuclear. http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=renewable_home-basics Edited May 23, 2014 by monty16 Quote
Keepitsimple Posted May 29, 2014 Report Posted May 29, 2014 So how about this for my opening bid? About 50% of all energy needs could be supplied to the N.America grid by green and renewable energy sources which would include solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and others you will possibly discover in this link. The other 50% will be supplied by hydro power which is also sustainable but not entirely green for reasons I can help to explain to you. We will then require a 10% +- redundancy which can be supplied with your choice of non-renewable sources or nuclear. http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=renewable_home-basics Just popped in so I missed how Tim and others seem to have straightened out your thinking. Now you're touting an insane 50% renewable target as being achievable? Using your own link - renewables were 9% in 2012 but over 50% of that 9% was hydro and wood. Building more rivers? Burning more forests? Is that your answer. Windmills and Solar? Less than 2% of renewables. Is it the rose coloured glasses - or a tinfoil hat? Quote Back to Basics
overthere Posted May 30, 2014 Report Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) You need to go back over the posts of mine and Tim's and see how his arguments were completely demolished. And btw, if you are going to try to hold yourself up as an expert then do the line drop calculation that I asked Tim to do when he tried to set himself up as an expert. So how about this for my opening bid? About 50% of all energy needs could be supplied to the N.America grid by green and renewable energy sources which would include solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and others you will possibly discover in this link. The other 50% will be supplied by hydro power which is also sustainable but not entirely green for reasons I can help to explain to you. We will then require a 10% +- redundancy which can be supplied with your choice of non-renewable sources or nuclear. http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=renewable_home-basics Absolute, blithering nonsense. Modern industrial societies do not exist with 50% of energy sources dependent on undependable power sources. End of. Edited May 30, 2014 by overthere Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
TimG Posted May 31, 2014 Report Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) 7Modern industrial societies do not exist with 50% of energy sources dependent on undependable power sources.I stopped debating with him when it became clear that he was simply going to ignore my arguments while making multiple posts about how he some how demolished the arguments which he had completely ignored. Edited May 31, 2014 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 I stopped debating with him when it became clear that he was simply going to ignore my arguments while making multiple posts about how he some how demolished the arguments which he had completely ignored. per norm, I see you continue to lay down your claims through recent posts in this thread... your unsubstantiated claims. Should I quote them and ask you for citations to support your so-called "arguments"? Quote
waldo Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 TimG and I have explained the absolute need for redundancy in a system that produces power from 'reliable' sources like nuclear, hydro, coal, or natural gas. You can feed in some juice from unreliable sources like wind or solar, but you still must have the base system+redundancy in place at all times. So, those unreliable sources are just additional redundancy, and vastly more expensive redundancy to boot. as I've shown in past posts, additional redundancy... over and above that already existing (for your "reliable" sources) isn't required until, for example, wind begins to approach ~20-25% of the mix. See Germany where, yes, additional redundancy has had to be entertained. Of course, as was done in the 60s and 70s for new nuclear and coal plants, additional infrastructure was required at significant expense. The same will be required for new/expanding renewables... once they reach respective redundancy impacting levels in respective deployments. Oh wait, are you setting a double standard here, one that only favours your apparent fossil-fuel agenda? As, for example, the "outright unreliability" of wind myth you keep perpetuating, perhaps you're unaware of long established grid-management operational practices that deal quite normally with variability... those, coupled with wind forecasting, appropriate scheduling and a reduction/management in actual variability through the placement of wind-farms across a larger geographic area positioning... you know, leveraging the fact wind doesn't blow the same, at all times, in all places. in any case, after reading your recent posts it's quite clear you're purposely setting up a strawman that presumes to speak to outright replacement of fossil-fuels by renewables... something reputable sources don't consider or front. For the relative so-called 40-50 year roadmap revision path, a realistic futures time period to target, fossil-fuels continue to play a significant role... of course they do. You appear to ascribe to the TimG school that says, "don't do nuthin, until you can do everythin"! Quote
overthere Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Oh wait, are you setting a double standard here, one that only favours your apparent fossil-fuel agenda? No. It doesn't mnater if the reliable source is fossil fuels or other reliabl;e 24/7 sources like hydro or nuclear. The equation is the same. You can discard your attempt at a strawman right there. in any case, after reading your recent posts it's quite clear you're purposely setting up a strawman that presumes to speak to outright replacement of fossil-fuels by renewables... something reputable sources don't consider or front. I'm responding to the numerous monty16 posts that propose just that. 50/50, see above. You appear to ascribe to the TimG school that says, "don't do nuthin, until you can do everythin"! Don't presume anything on my behalf, ta. There is plenty we can do, but switching large amounts of base capacity- the 100%- to wind and solar in lieu of rock solid 24/7 reliability is not one of those things we can or will do. If we are to entertain thoughts of maintaining ourselves as First World modern industrialized society, elecrical supply certainty is not optional. The best options for Canada IMO is to move away from coal, maximize the few remaining large scale hydro opportunities, and start building reactors again. Wind forecasting? Given that nobody can reliably tell us if it will rain or not tomorrow("60% chance of precipitation" forecasts are common), would you invest a few hundred million in a factory, here's hoping we'll have power for the late shift? Maybe we could issue balloons for factory workers to rub on their heads, generate a little static electrictiy to keep the lights running on calm evenings. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
TimG Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) There is plenty we can do, but switching large amounts of base capacity- the 100%- to wind and solar in lieu of rock solid 24/7 reliability is not one of those things we can or will do. A collection of charts that put the wind/solar delusions in perspective: http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-climate-and-environmental-impacts-of-renewables Edited June 1, 2014 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 There is plenty we can do, but switching large amounts of base capacity- the 100%- to wind and solar in lieu of rock solid 24/7 reliability is not one of those things we can or will do. 100% switch??? Like I said, what's with YOUR strawman..... your continued strawman? Quote
TimG Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Here are some good stats that put all that wind power in Denmark and Germany in perspective: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh A technology that requires power prices to quadruple is not worth it. Edited June 2, 2014 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 A technology that requires power prices to quadruple is not worth it. that's quite the broad brush analysis you've provided... as compared to looking at the respective high-cost countries... what a concept! Germany, for instance, has limited supply generation competition... although wholesale costs are significantly reducing (in major part as a result of the rapidly expanding wind/solar generation capacity), those cost reductions are not being passed on to consumers at the retail level by the few German electricity suppliers - go figure! Quote
Argus Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 that's quite the broad brush analysis you've provided... as compared to looking at the respective high-cost countries... what a concept! Germany, for instance, has limited supply generation competition... although wholesale costs are significantly reducing (in major part as a result of the rapidly expanding wind/solar generation capacity), those cost reductions are not being passed on to consumers at the retail level by the few German electricity suppliers - go figure Speaking of Germany. This Reuters report compares the cost of electricity between Germany and the US and claims major industrial groups are packing up and moving to the US because of the cheaper electricity there. I find it interesting how the report speaks of worries of the 'deindustralizatoin' of Germany due to electricity costs - which is kind of what we see happening in Ontario, as well. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/02/uk-usa-germany-power-special-report-idUKKBN0ED0D220140602 Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
overthere Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 100% switch??? Like I said, what's with YOUR strawman..... your continued strawman? The 100% is not the amount switched from reliable sources to wind or solar or vice versa, the 100% refers to the amount of electricity that must be available 24/7 to maintain an industrial base. None of that can be uncertain. Duh. Why do you persist? Is this personal with you? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
waldo Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 The 100% is not the amount switched from reliable sources to wind or solar or vice versa, the 100% refers to the amount of electricity that must be available 24/7 to maintain an industrial base. None of that can be uncertain. Duh. hard to make the/your now expressed distinction... when you've been plying that repeat strawman of yours. Again, no reputable agencies/organizations/individuals suggest any semblance of outright replacement of fossil-fuel based energy sources. Realistic targets for renewable conversion timeframes assume fossil-fuels will continue to be sourced/leveraged within the overall mix..... while pursuing efforts to reduce/minimize their related emissions. As you say, "Duh". Why do you persist? Is this personal with you? persist, personal??? Is that your response to being questioned/challenged? Quote
monty16 Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 If fossil energy sources became immediately unavailable, those sources would be replace immediately with other sources of energy that we require to exist. The only argument against that fact would be, at what cost. At what cost do we continue to hang onto fossil fuels? The question can't even begin to be considered until we are willing to accept that we threaten our future existence by relying on fossil fuels. Quote
Argus Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 If fossil energy sources became immediately unavailable, those sources would be replace immediately with other sources of energy that we require to exist. The only argument against that fact would be, at what cost. At what cost do we continue to hang onto fossil fuels? The question can't even begin to be considered until we are willing to accept that we threaten our future existence by relying on fossil fuels. We don't threaten our future existence. We threaten some low-lying land. If fossil energy became immediately unavailable it would mean the end of civilization. Which would please the eco nuts, but get billions of people killed. The cost of energy is not merey a profit/loss thing. The higher the cost of energy, the less profit in manufacturing things. The less profit, the less will be manufactured. The less that is manufactured, the less jobs, and the higher the cost of those goods (and services). You wind up with mass poverty and everyone but the rich unable to obtain more than the most basic of goods. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
monty16 Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 We don't threaten our future existence. We threaten some low-lying land. If fossil energy became immediately unavailable it would mean the end of civilization. Which would please the eco nuts, but get billions of people killed. The cost of energy is not merey a profit/loss thing. The higher the cost of energy, the less profit in manufacturing things. The less profit, the less will be manufactured. The less that is manufactured, the less jobs, and the higher the cost of those goods (and services). You wind up with mass poverty and everyone but the rich unable to obtain more than the most basic of goods. To debate with someone who characterizes the growing problems caused by fossil fuel as 'threatening some low-lying land, would be to indulge in a senseless argument. When you stop rejecting rational debate in favour of ignorance of the issues then I will perhaps talk to you on the issues. Quote
Argus Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 When you stop rejecting rational debate in favour of ignorance of the issues then I will perhaps talk to you on the issues. You mean when I start, don't you? Cuz then we'd be on more of an equal footing Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
overthere Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 hard to make the/your now expressed distinction... when you've been plying that repeat strawman of yours Nope, been saying the same thing from the first post here: industrial societies like ours must have 100% security of energy from reliable sources, plus some redundancy to cover breakdown and maintenance., also from reliable sources. . Adding feed from wind solar etc. is just more reduindncy and expensive. Until those sources can be stored, that won't change. Show me where I said anyhting else or shut your piehole. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
monty16 Posted June 5, 2014 Report Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Nope, been saying the same thing from the first post here: industrial societies like ours must have 100% security of energy from reliable sources, plus some redundancy to cover breakdown and maintenance., also from reliable sources. . Adding feed from wind solar etc. is just more reduindncy and expensive. Until those sources can be stored, that won't change. Show me where I said anyhting else or shut your piehole. Show us how any energy source, green or otherwise, can be stored easier than another. You just lack understanding of the issues. So let's begin with your re-education. First off, I'm going to tell you that energy demands are reduced dramatically when the sun doesn't shine because of nightfall. Thereby eliminating most of the redundancy with solar. You may also want to consider, because your side seems to be so worried about redundancy, that a lot of energy from conventional sources is not used when that part of the country sleeps. See if you can absorb that before your next lesson. Edited June 5, 2014 by monty16 Quote
overthere Posted June 6, 2014 Report Posted June 6, 2014 Show us how any energy source, green or otherwise, can be stored easier than another. You just lack understanding of the issues. Well lets see. Water backs up behind a dam and can be used at leaisure to generate hydro. Coal you just pile up in a big heap. Nuclear is stored in manufactured fuel rods. Natural gas sits in both the ground and in big tanks until you need it. Wind, well that is kind of a waiting game innit. And as you point out the sun rises and sets..... First off, I'm going to tell you that energy demands are reduced dramatically when the sun doesn't shine because of nightfall. Oh My God. That beep beep you hear means the special bus is waiting to pick you up. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
monty16 Posted June 7, 2014 Report Posted June 7, 2014 Well lets see. Water backs up behind a dam and can be used at leaisure to generate hydro. Coal you just pile up in a big heap. Nuclear is stored in manufactured fuel rods. Natural gas sits in both the ground and in big tanks until you need it. Wind, well that is kind of a waiting game innit. And as you point out the sun rises and sets..... Oh My God. That beep beep you hear means the special bus is waiting to pick you up. So, coal is piled up until it's needed so why is the wind not harnessed to produce power until it's needed? LOL Aside from that, that post contains yet another personal attack and so I've reported it. Quote
monty16 Posted June 7, 2014 Report Posted June 7, 2014 It's simply a case of not understanding. How could any individual not understand that if coal is piled up when not needed, the wind is not harnessed until it's needed? Or is it just more like a dogmatic approach to the issue for motives to which we aren't privy? I suggest the latter and am willing to follow through on proving it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.