Climate Change

[Nationalist]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You have a lot of difficulty digesting facts. What I said is precisely true. 

When you flip a light switch, why do you care how the electricity was generated? You just want the light to go on.

What I care about...is that we do not make life for everyone more difficult just so a bunch of whiny little biatches can feel that they're saving the whole damn planet.

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Maybe try Prozac?

Why? What's Prozac? I don't take pills...except vitamins.

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

What I care about...is that we do not make life for everyone more difficult just so a bunch of whiny little biatches can feel that they're saving the whole damn planet.

Oh, I forgot: Every dam thing with you needs to be re-directed into something else.  Jesus man, surely you have no friends in this world.  
 

When you flip a light switch, does it matter whether the electricity came from the wind or coal? Does the switch behave differently? Does the light shine differently? Do the electrons flow slower? 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

@bcsapper - Funny eh? You'll laugh yourself silly over this then...

https://www.unicef.org/montenegro/en/stories/secret-group-powerful-people-control-world-‒-61-montenegrin-citizens-believe

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/28/seven-people-keys-worldwide-internet-security-web

Centrally controlled Internet addressing.

https://www.who.int/news/item/03-03-2023-countries-begin-negotiations-on-global-agreement-to-protect-world-from-future-pandemic-emergencies

The WHO wants absolute control over pandemic responses globally.

In the meantime...banks are being centralized as small outfits get eaten by the big banks. This is happening in most lines of business as well. Note how the big box stores were allowed to remain open for business during The Rona freakout.

Gates is promoting lab-made meat in lieu of natural farmed meat.

Farmers are being shut down all over the west...especially in Holland.

The USA has an open border. Europe has already been flooded with refugees.

Fossil fuels are under intense attack.

Parents are being stripped of their natural rights to raise their kids.

The 2 largest nuclear powers in the world are not dancing around each other in what would be the end of humanity if it comes to direct blows.

Issue after issue, tearing the population apart and producing more suffering and more anger.

I don't know for sure if the Illuminati exists. I do know that we watch on seemingly helpless, while insane ideas rule the day making everyone's life just a little harder with each new edict.

Libbies are angry...conservatives are angry...independents are angry. Everyone's angry and ready to pop. Ready for a fight.

And I have a sneaking suspicion we're all gonna get a chance to actually fight.

I couldn't have planned this better myself.

You?

[Nationalist]

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Oh, I forgot: Every dam thing with you needs to be re-directed into something else.  Jesus man, surely you have no friends in this world.  
 

When you flip a light switch, does it matter whether the electricity came from the wind or coal? Does the switch behave differently? Does the light shine differently? Do the electrons flow slower? 

I told you. Try to elevate your understanding to at least grade 10 level?

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Cute picture. A relative of yours?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Cute picture. A relative of yours?

I could tell you, but you know I would have to kill you, right?

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, Rebound said:

When you flip a light switch, does it matter whether the electricity came from the wind or coal?

It does if it costs a different amount.  More importantly it does if because of the reliability of the source sometimes the light DOESN'T come on.

And that's what happens when you try to rely on wind and solar overly much. It's more expensive and less reliable than existing coal facilities in many cases.

Where wind is more reliable and cheaper people will move to it without further incentive.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

When you flip a light switch, does it matter whether the electricity came from the wind or coal? Does the switch behave differently? Does the light shine differently? Do the electrons flow slower? 

Nope, that's why you should have no problem sticking with fossil fuels. 

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Nope, that's why you should have no problem sticking with fossil fuels. 

LOL - well played  

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It does if it costs a different amount.  More importantly it does if because of the reliability of the source sometimes the light DOESN'T come on.

And that's what happens when you try to rely on wind and solar overly much. It's more expensive and less reliable than existing coal facilities in many cases.

Where wind is more reliable and cheaper people will move to it without further incentive.

Can you show us evidence that electricity from coal costs less to produce than electricity generated from wind or solar?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Can you show us evidence that electricity from coal costs less to produce than electricity generated from wind or solar?

Sure.  But lets make it fun and get you to go through the process. Sooner or later you have to learn to do this yourself, i can't be holding your hand like you were a child ALL your life.

I'll start you off. First lets look at what an 'average' existing coal power plant produces for electricity. Worldwide there are over 2,400 coal-fired power stations, totaling over 2,000 gigawatts capacity according to wikipedia. So lets call it an average of .83 gigawatts per facility.  That's actually pretty low.

So.  Now YOU need to look up the cost of building a new facility that would produce .83 gigawatts of power guaranteed continuously all year. At the VERY least it must produce that amount in a year, even if output is a little higher some parts of the year. Otherwise it's not equivalent. One of the problems with solar is that they tend to require to be overbuilt to hit the target because it's not sunny all the time

Obviously you'll need a location to calculate the hours of sun. Let's pick somewhere that's in your favour.  Alberta should do nicely.

So you'll need to look up the total hours of sunlight, then calculate the costs of a facility to harvest enough sunlight to guarantee the same power output in a year.

THEN we calculate the cost of coal burnt and compare that to the cost of building and operating the solar plant.  That will give us the cost of electricity and we can go from there.

Once you do that you'll find that my statement that existing coal plants are less expensive is true for the likely life of the solar facility.

 

I suspect you knew i was right from the get go tho and won't bother to do even that small amount of work.

[Rebound]

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure.  But lets make it fun and get you to go through the process. Sooner or later you have to learn to do this yourself, i can't be holding your hand like you were a child ALL your life.

I'll start you off. First lets look at what an 'average' existing coal power plant produces for electricity. Worldwide there are over 2,400 coal-fired power stations, totaling over 2,000 gigawatts capacity according to wikipedia. So lets call it an average of .83 gigawatts per facility.  That's actually pretty low.

So.  Now YOU need to look up the cost of building a new facility that would produce .83 gigawatts of power guaranteed continuously all year. At the VERY least it must produce that amount in a year, even if output is a little higher some parts of the year. Otherwise it's not equivalent. One of the problems with solar is that they tend to require to be overbuilt to hit the target because it's not sunny all the time

Obviously you'll need a location to calculate the hours of sun. Let's pick somewhere that's in your favour.  Alberta should do nicely.

So you'll need to look up the total hours of sunlight, then calculate the costs of a facility to harvest enough sunlight to guarantee the same power output in a year.

THEN we calculate the cost of coal burnt and compare that to the cost of building and operating the solar plant.  That will give us the cost of electricity and we can go from there.

Once you do that you'll find that my statement that existing coal plants are less expensive is true for the likely life of the solar facility.

 

I suspect you knew i was right from the get go tho and won't bother to do even that small amount of work.

That is not evidence.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

That is not evidence.

So you knew i was right and you were just sealioning   Thought so - pretty easy to spot a leftie hypocrite from a mile off. This is why nobody takes the left seriously anymore.

Most existing coal plants are cheaper than building a new solar or wind facility. And they produce more consistent power too.  We can replace some of them  with solar as they get old enough that maintaining them is too expensive, but even then solar is just plain unavailable all too often. You need reliable power. 

[Rebound]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you knew i was right and you were just sealioning   Thought so - pretty easy to spot a leftie hypocrite from a mile off. This is why nobody takes the left seriously anymore.

Most existing coal plants are cheaper than building a new solar or wind facility. And they produce more consistent power too.  We can replace some of them  with solar as they get old enough that maintaining them is too expensive, but even then solar is just plain unavailable all too often. You need reliable power. 

You’re just making things up.  You don’t know the answer. 
So, you’re wrong:

New Wind and Solar Are Cheaper Than the Costs to Operate All But One Coal-Fired Power Plant in the United States

New analysis shows that renewables beat existing coal plants 99 percent of the time

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012023/wind-solar-coal-power-plant-costs/#:~:text=The authors illustrate this point,from new wind and solar.

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You’re just making things up.  You don’t know the answer. 
So, you’re wrong:

New Wind and Solar Are Cheaper Than the Costs to Operate All But One Coal-Fired Power Plant in the United States

New analysis shows that renewables beat existing coal plants 99 percent of the time

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012023/wind-solar-coal-power-plant-costs/#:~:text=The authors illustrate this point,from new wind and solar.

Well, you get what you pay for and cheap ass energy is the name of the Left's game

https://nypost.com/2023/06/05/thank-the-green-energy-cult-for-major-blackouts-this-summer/

[Rebound]

11 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Well, you get what you pay for and cheap ass energy is the name of the Left's game

https://nypost.com/2023/06/05/thank-the-green-energy-cult-for-major-blackouts-this-summer/

Your article is an OPINION piece.  

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You’re just making things up.  You don’t know the answer. 
So, you’re wrong:

New Wind and Solar Are Cheaper Than the Costs to Operate All But One Coal-Fired Power Plant in the United States

New analysis shows that renewables beat existing coal plants 99 percent of the time

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012023/wind-solar-coal-power-plant-costs/#:~:text=The authors illustrate this point,from new wind and solar.

Nope - you're just a liar.  Says right in the first bit -

and an assist from the Inflation Reduction Act. As well as new guranteed loan funding.

in other words - IF THE GOV"T SUBSIDIZES IT.

Sure -but if the gov't subsidizes coal it would be cheaper too.

 

And - if you read the report it WILL be cheaper. It's not cheaper right now

 

So - sorry kiddo. That's why it's imporatnt to do your own calculations.  Typical leftie - looks for a headline he likes and doesn't read the story or the report. Pathetic. How can ANYONE trust what the left says about the subject?

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Your article is an OPINION piece.  

YOur article was an opinion piece too kiddo. 

[Rebound]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - you're just a liar.  Says right in the first bit -

and an assist from the Inflation Reduction Act. As well as new guranteed loan funding.

in other words - IF THE GOV"T SUBSIDIZES IT.

Sure -but if the gov't subsidizes coal it would be cheaper too.

 

And - if you read the report it WILL be cheaper. It's not cheaper right now

 

So - sorry kiddo. That's why it's imporatnt to do your own calculations.  Typical leftie - looks for a headline he likes and doesn't read the story or the report. Pathetic. How can ANYONE trust what the left says about the subject?

YOur article was an opinion piece too kiddo. 

You think the US Federal government hasn’t subsidized coal and petroleum, build dams, transmission lines, and fought wars over oil? 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You think the US Federal government hasn’t subsidized coal and petroleum, build dams, transmission lines, and fought wars over oil? 

I think you're still an !diot who's trying to excuse his lazy thinking instead of paying attention.

Are they fighting any wars over COAL at the moment? Are they currently subsidizing COAL production?

No? Not at all? none?

Hmmm - then its' got nothing to do with the current cost of producing electricity with coal.  Does it. 

It is cheaper at the moment in many cases to use the existing coal infrastructure than to build new solar. The cost is the cost regardless of whether the gov't pays for it or private industry does.

As plants come to the end of their lives that may change but right now that's not the case.  And if you'd read that report instead of the headline you'd know that.

[Rebound]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think you're still an !diot who's trying to excuse his lazy thinking instead of paying attention.

Are they fighting any wars over COAL at the moment? Are they currently subsidizing COAL production?

No? Not at all? none?

Hmmm - then its' got nothing to do with the current cost of producing electricity with coal.  Does it. 

It is cheaper at the moment in many cases to use the existing coal infrastructure than to build new solar. The cost is the cost regardless of whether the gov't pays for it or private industry does.

As plants come to the end of their lives that may change but right now that's not the case.  And if you'd read that report instead of the headline you'd know that.

Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive). These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added toIRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive). These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal.

Nope.  Sorry - but that's a lie. I'll give one example. Here's the only part of 48a that deals with coal.

 

Subsec. (l)(3)(A). Pub. L. 96-223, Sec. 222(b), (g)(2), struck out ‘(other than coke or coke gas)’ after ‘solid fuel’ in cl. (iii) and, in cl. (v), substituted provisions relating to equipment which converts coal into a substitute for a petroleum or natural gas derived feedstock for the manufacture of chemicals or other products and equipment which converts coal into methanol, ammonia, or hydroprocessed coal liquid or solid for provisions which had related simply to equipment which used coal as feedstock for the manufacture of chemicals or other products other than coke or coke gas, added cl. (ix), and, following cl. (ix), inserted provision that the equipment described in cl. (vii) includes equipment used for the storage of fuel derived from garbage at the site at which such fuel was produced from garbage.

So - NOT approved for use as a fuel for creating electricity.

The rest are pretty much the same.  How many times do i have to tell you to READ, not just post.

[Deluge]

12 hours ago, Rebound said:

Your article is an OPINION piece.  

I never said it wasn't - but it does ring true, and that's what's most important. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Deluge