Global Oil Prices Rise!!

[Rebound]

British Petroleum announced they are suspending shipping operations in the Persian Gulf following missile attacks from Yemen. As a result, oil prices have increased globally.  
 

First Point: A guy in Canada fills up his car with gas drilled and refined in Canada… still pays more.  Doesn’t it feel great to get shafted up the butt like that?  The cost to make the gas didn’t increase at all, but because of something 7,000 miles away which has nothing at all to do with the gas that goes inside your car… you still pay more.  
 

Second Point: This illustrates how Islamic terrorism controls our lives.  And because these missiles are funded by Iran, who is in turn funded by oil, it shows how our over-dependence on oil harms us.  
 

Third Point: Locally generated renewable energy is immune from this effect. Its price is only subject to LOCAL supply, demand and regulation. It’s why electricity is so cheap in regions served by hydroelectric (renewable) electricity. 
 

Thirty percent of the electricity generated in Texas and fifty percent of the electricity generated in Iowa comes from windmills. Wind works.  It will never supply 100% of our power, but it doesn’t need to. As we build more and more renewable electric generation, such as solar and wind, our energy prices will plummet and we will become truly energy independent. America and Canada will never be energy independent on coal and petroleum alone.  
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravsharma/2023/12/18/oil-giant-bp-joins-shipping-companies-in-pausing-shipments-via-red-sea/amp/

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

British Petroleum announced they are suspending shipping operations in the Persian Gulf following missile attacks from Yemen. As a result, oil prices have increased globally.  
 

First Point: A guy in Canada fills up his car with gas drilled and refined in Canada… still pays more.  Doesn’t it feel great to get shafted up the butt like that?  The cost to make the gas didn’t increase at all, but because of something 7,000 miles away which has nothing at all to do with the gas that goes inside your car… you still pay more.  
 

Second Point: This illustrates how Islamic terrorism controls our lives.  And because these missiles are funded by Iran, who is in turn funded by oil, it shows how our over-dependence on oil harms us.  
 

Third Point: Locally generated renewable energy is immune from this effect. Its price is only subject to LOCAL supply, demand and regulation. It’s why electricity is so cheap in regions served by hydroelectric (renewable) electricity. 
 

Thirty percent of the electricity generated in Texas and fifty percent of the electricity generated in Iowa comes from windmills. Wind works.  It will never supply 100% of our power, but it doesn’t need to. As we build more and more renewable electric generation, such as solar and wind, our energy prices will plummet and we will become truly energy independent. America and Canada will never be energy independent on coal and petroleum alone.  
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravsharma/2023/12/18/oil-giant-bp-joins-shipping-companies-in-pausing-shipments-via-red-sea/amp/

First point -  well... it's not getting 'shafted', it's just others are willing to pay more for that oil.

Second point - True. And honestly i think we should be less tolerant of it.

Third point - mostly true.   Not QUITE true - for example a goodly dollop of our canadian power is sold to america and powers a lot of their needs, and as their needs go up it'll still affect our rates and such.

But ... yes.  GENERALLY speaking power generated locally is less expensive, and isn't contingent on world wide requirements.

This is why i have said repeatedly that if CANADA wants to have a major impact on global emissions then the only way is to be the ones to develop the next gen tech for generating and storing power.

[herbie]

Only point: How convenient for the Oil Companies.
As if they even need another semi-believable excuse.

Watch for OPEC to soon do to the Houthis as Israel is doing to Hamas.

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

First point -  well... it's not getting 'shafted', it's just others are willing to pay more for that oil.

Second point - True. And honestly i think we should be less tolerant of it.

Third point - mostly true.   Not QUITE true - for example a goodly dollop of our canadian power is sold to america and powers a lot of their needs, and as their needs go up it'll still affect our rates and such.

But ... yes.  GENERALLY speaking power generated locally is less expensive, and isn't contingent on world wide requirements.

This is why i have said repeatedly that if CANADA wants to have a major impact on global emissions then the only way is to be the ones to develop the next gen tech for generating and storing power.

Exactly! Renewable energy is the best solution. The alternative is to keep sending our children to die in the Mideast for oil, destroying our environment and waiting for the day when oil inevitably becomes scarce.  What’s the upside in that?  
 

Renewable energy has zero fuel cost, only capital and maintenance.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Exactly! Renewable energy is the best solution. The alternative is to keep sending our children to die in the Mideast for oil, destroying our environment and waiting for the day when oil inevitably becomes scarce.  What’s the upside in that?  
 

Renewable energy has zero fuel cost, only capital and maintenance.  

Sure, but of course the challenge is the tech just isn't quite there yet. Best we can do is 'semi renewable' or zero emissions like nuclear as a transition

[WestCanMan]

The cost of power in Canada is up because of disastrous NDP/LPOC policies, period. 

Ontario: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/ontarios-power-price-crisis-how-did-it-happen-and-who-got-hurt

Quote

Ontario’s power troubles began after the Ontario government began phasing-out coal power generation in 2005. But electricity prices really took off in 2009 when the government launched its Green Energy Act, which features a program to provide long-term guaranteed contracts to generators with renewable sources (wind, solar, etc.) at a fixed, above-market price. To pay for those commitments, and to cover the cost of conservation programs in the Act, Ontario levied a new surcharge on electricity called the “Global Adjustment.”

Between 2008 and 2016, the Global Adjustment grew more than 70 per cent, causing a drastic increase in electricity prices. The high cost associated with aggressively promoting renewable sources is particularly troubling given the relatively small amount of electricity generated by these sources. In 2016, renewable sources generated less than 7 per cent of electricity in Ontario while accounting for almost 30 per cent of the Global Adjustment.

The exact same things happened in Alberta under the NDP. Kill coal, decarbonize, blah, blah, blah.

 

To quote the great Dr Jordan Peterson: [paraphrasing] "When the cost of energy rises, poor people are hurt the most, because the cost of fuels is such a large percentage of their budget."

A tank of gas at $40 or $200 makes no difference to Justin Trudeau or any of the other climate crusaders who cruise in yachts and private jets. 

The rising price of N Gas, electricity, gasoline and food is more than a lot of people can bear. Leftist gov'ts are entirely to blame. 

Just wait 'til some of Trudeau's friends blow up another pipeline somewhere. If it's not Biden destroying pipelines in Europe it's environmentalist crazies here. 

[Hodad]

9 hours ago, Rebound said:

British Petroleum announced they are suspending shipping operations in the Persian Gulf following missile attacks from Yemen. As a result, oil prices have increased globally.  
 

First Point: A guy in Canada fills up his car with gas drilled and refined in Canada… still pays more.  Doesn’t it feel great to get shafted up the butt like that?  The cost to make the gas didn’t increase at all, but because of something 7,000 miles away which has nothing at all to do with the gas that goes inside your car… you still pay more.  
 

Second Point: This illustrates how Islamic terrorism controls our lives.  And because these missiles are funded by Iran, who is in turn funded by oil, it shows how our over-dependence on oil harms us.  
 

Third Point: Locally generated renewable energy is immune from this effect. Its price is only subject to LOCAL supply, demand and regulation. It’s why electricity is so cheap in regions served by hydroelectric (renewable) electricity. 
 

Thirty percent of the electricity generated in Texas and fifty percent of the electricity generated in Iowa comes from windmills. Wind works.  It will never supply 100% of our power, but it doesn’t need to. As we build more and more renewable electric generation, such as solar and wind, our energy prices will plummet and we will become truly energy independent. America and Canada will never be energy independent on coal and petroleum alone.  
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravsharma/2023/12/18/oil-giant-bp-joins-shipping-companies-in-pausing-shipments-via-red-sea/amp/

Fourth point: Bog stupid buffoons in North America--including those on this board--will immediately and nonsensically blame Joe Biden (and record domestic production) for any price increase at the pump. Because they don't even know enough to be embarrassed by that claim.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The cost of power in Canada is up because of disastrous NDP/LPOC policies, period. 

Ontario: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/ontarios-power-price-crisis-how-did-it-happen-and-who-got-hurt

The exact same things happened in Alberta under the NDP. Kill coal, decarbonize, blah, blah, blah.

 

To quote the great Dr Jordan Peterson: [paraphrasing] "When the cost of energy rises, poor people are hurt the most, because the cost of fuels is such a large percentage of their budget."

A tank of gas at $40 or $200 makes no difference to Justin Trudeau or any of the other climate crusaders who cruise in yachts and private jets. 

The rising price of N Gas, electricity, gasoline and food is more than a lot of people can bear. Leftist gov'ts are entirely to blame. 

Just wait 'til some of Trudeau's friends blow up another pipeline somewhere. If it's not Biden destroying pipelines in Europe it's environmentalist crazies here. 

Too bad you have ZERO evidence that "Trudeau's friends" or Biden had anything to do with "destroying pipelines."

As usual you imagine something you heard on FOS LIES is fact. You're not even smart enough to take a clue about their credibility from the HUGE evidence of their LIES that cost Murdoch $800M. LMAO

Who Blew Up the Nord Stream Pipeline?

Quote

Since that time, however, a steady drip of intelligence leaks has given us more insight into who might be responsible; a bombshell report in earlier this month in the New York Times revealed that “American intelligence agencies now believe the operation was carried out at least with the loose direction of the Ukrainian government.”

The response to these revelations has been muted, with Western governments no doubt assessing that highlighting it could undermine cohesion between Ukraine and its foreign backers. But ignoring these revelations is a mistake. Instead, they should be treated as a reminder that not every issue in European security can be explained by events that have occurred since February 2022.

....

But none of the information that has emerged in the past few months suggests a link to the United States, and it beggars belief that an administration as cautious about escalation as the Biden administration would consider such a rash move.

For Ukraine, the motive was certainly there. Destroying the pipeline would hurt Russia and remove a potential source of Russian leverage over Europe in the future.

The remaining possibilities were less politically palatable, cutting through the clear picture of right and wrong of the war in Ukraine, suggesting that the victims of Russian aggression might themselves engage in wrongful acts. Yet why would Ukraine, so dependent on Western aid and weapons, risk angering Western European states? It seemed hard to believe.

 

But the motive was certainly there. Destroying the pipeline would hurt Russia and remove a potential source of Russian leverage over Europe in the future. It would tie the hands of Germany and other states; no matter how hard the winter, it would now be impossible for these states to reverse sanctions and reopen the pipeline. And it would ensure that most Russian energy exports to Europe would still need to transit Ukraine.

More broadly, two decades of contention between Western and Eastern Europe over energy security provides a plausible way of explaining such a choice. The destruction of Nord Stream fits neatly into disagreements over which states within the sprawling European community get to decide exactly what constitutes a shared European energy security. It is a reminder that, despite 18 months of public unity, interests diverge across Europe.

Indeed, Russian oil and gas continue to flow to some landlocked countries in Europe thanks to exemptions in European sanctions restrictions; that energy flows through Ukrainian pipelines. Throughout the past year, the kind of haggling over transit fees that has long characterized energy flows in Eastern Europe has persisted. In April, Hungary announced that it would pay Ukraine directly to permit the transit of Russian oil through the Druzhba pipeline. But Kyiv has also been vocally unhappy with Hungary’s decision to import more Russian gas via the non-Ukrainian TurkStream pipeline. The question is not necessarily, then, one of Russian energy supplies, but rather who gets to decide whether specific supplies will continue or not.

It’s currently unclear whether Russian energy will ever again flow to Europe in large quantities. But one thing is certain: The destruction of Nord Stream once again places Ukraine and other Eastern European states in a position of greater leverage on the energy question. Destroying Nord Stream is an understandable enough choice from the point of view of a country engaged in a desperate war for survival. But it may prompt Ukraine’s partners to reassess just how closely their interests actually align with Kyiv.

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Too bad you have ZERO evidence that "Trudeau's friends" or Biden had anything to do with "destroying pipelines."

 

too bad you don't have any proof they didn't and that you're a nutbar  

[Rebound]

On 12/18/2023 at 6:16 PM, CdnFox said:

Sure, but of course the challenge is the tech just isn't quite there yet. Best we can do is 'semi renewable' or zero emissions like nuclear as a transition

Let me ask you something:

If windmills provide half the electricity of Iowa, half the electricity of Denmark, and 30% of the electricity of Texas… a huge state… what is it about the technology that is not ready? 
 

Understand… we aren’t talking about switching to 0% petroleum consumption, we’re talking about substantially shifting a large percentage of electrical generation to renewables while simultaneously transition to a larger percentage of electric vehicles.  
 

And, looking at electric vehicles, Porsche has a screamer of an EV that outperforms its gas powered cars.  Tesla has EV’s that smoke Corvettes and Ferraris.  So it’s not like electric cars are slow. 

[Rebound]

On 12/19/2023 at 2:09 AM, CdnFox said:

too bad you don't have any proof they didn't and that you're a nutbar  

“No proof they didn’t”?

By your logic, you are a mass murderer and you have no proof that you are not a mass murderer… therefore you are a mass murderer.  That’s your logic at work.  
 

Beside that; there is now evidence that the Nordstrom was sabotaged by Ukrainian agents. 

[Hodad]

19 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Beside that; there is now evidence that the Nordstrom was sabotaged by Ukrainian agents. 

Nah, Nordstrom is a victim of being squeezed between surging fast fashion and true luxury retail. The Ukrainians are innocent. 

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Nah, Nordstrom is a victim of being squeezed between surging fast fashion and true luxury retail. The Ukrainians are innocent. 

Meh…. Autocorrect’s a blitch. 

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, Rebound said:

“No proof they didn’t”?

By your logic, you are a mass murderer and you have no proof that you are not a mass murderer… therefore you are a mass murderer.  That’s your logic at work.  
 

Beside that; there is now evidence that the Nordstrom was sabotaged by Ukrainian agents. 

I have lots of proof i'm not a mass murderer   give me your address and a time when you'll be alone and i'll bring it over....  LOL

But if you were paying attention you'd note that was robotwit's argument - a lack of proof is proof.  If you're too stupid to tell the difference between me making a serious argument and making fun of a loser like robodope then the bigger question is how the hell do you muster the brain power to get your shoes tied?   

(it's slip ons isn't it. )

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Let me ask you something:

If windmills provide half the electricity of Iowa, half the electricity of Denmark, and 30% of the electricity of Texas… a huge state… what is it about the technology that is not ready? 
 

The short answer is "the part where it can't provide 100 percent of the power". 

Also - your statement is factually inaccurate and misleading where it is accurate.

Wind power does not produce 50 percent of the power in texas. 

wind power accounted for at least 15.7% of the electricity generated in Texas during 2017, as wind was 17.4% of electricity generated in ERCOT, which manages 90% of Texas's power.^[4][5] ERCOT set a new wind output record of nearly 19.7 GW at 7:19 pm Central Standard Time on Monday, January 21, 2019.^[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

At their best - the best days they had - it produced 40-50 percent of the power CREATED IN TEXAS (not including other sources) during THAT DAY.   And that's at the time  of the year when wind is strongest, and only for short periods.

 

I could go on and prove why you're even more wrong than that - but it highlights the problem.  Why do people like you feel the need to spread misinformation like that? Texas has never ever come close to sustainably producing 50 percent of it's power needs over time.  And it has the largest deployment of wind power IN THE WORLD.

 

SO really - you're out there trying to get people to take this issue seriously , and you're hoping people take YOU seriously and think about this issue, and you start off with what is basically a massive whopper of a lie that anyone can disprove with 10 seconds of research.

Do you see now why there are so many deniers?  If you were more honest and upfront you'd go much further convincing people

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Understand… we aren’t talking about switching to 0% petroleum consumption, we’re talking about substantially shifting a large percentage of electrical generation to renewables while simultaneously transition to a larger percentage of electric vehicles.  
 

 

Figured i'd reply to the rest, the last post was getting long.

First off - as noted 'renewables' produce far far less power than you think or say.  Far less. And it's worse in Canada where we simply don't have the same intensity of sunlight to play with than they would in california for example. Nor as many solar hours.

As i've said I am ALL FOR supplementing our power grind with renewable energy. Especially solar, which is the cheapest and least destructive environmentally power that we have.  In bc we're also doing run of the river hydro projects which produce enough power for local communities and cause minimal damage and run all year. 

But - until there are major changes in technology renewables can only be a minor supplement. Meanwhile  our population and consumption is growing - and that's before we even try to throw EV's into the mix.

Add ev's and we have even larger issues.  Grid issues, power generation issues, battery issues, etc.

And adapting takes money. Money that is in short supply because our economy has been dragged to the ground by carbon taxes that do nothing and wasteful gov't spending.

If we had next generation battery tech that allowed us to efficiently store large amounts of power and to 'fill up' the storage quickly - that would be a game changer. Solar is more useful then, ev's more practical, etc etc.

So if we care about the environment what we should be doing is cancelling the carbon tax, selling as much of our oil and gas as we can right now to reduce world dependency on russa et al and to develop the relationships that we will one day use to sell the tech we develop to eliminate oil, and vastly pushing making Canada the nexus for next gen power and battery and charging tech.

 

 

[Rebound]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Figured i'd reply to the rest, the last post was getting long.

First off - as noted 'renewables' produce far far less power than you think or say.  Far less. And it's worse in Canada where we simply don't have the same intensity of sunlight to play with than they would in california for example. Nor as many solar hours.

As i've said I am ALL FOR supplementing our power grind with renewable energy. Especially solar, which is the cheapest and least destructive environmentally power that we have.  In bc we're also doing run of the river hydro projects which produce enough power for local communities and cause minimal damage and run all year. 

But - until there are major changes in technology renewables can only be a minor supplement. Meanwhile  our population and consumption is growing - and that's before we even try to throw EV's into the mix.

Add ev's and we have even larger issues.  Grid issues, power generation issues, battery issues, etc.

And adapting takes money. Money that is in short supply because our economy has been dragged to the ground by carbon taxes that do nothing and wasteful gov't spending.

If we had next generation battery tech that allowed us to efficiently store large amounts of power and to 'fill up' the storage quickly - that would be a game changer. Solar is more useful then, ev's more practical, etc etc.

So if we care about the environment what we should be doing is cancelling the carbon tax, selling as much of our oil and gas as we can right now to reduce world dependency on russa et al and to develop the relationships that we will one day use to sell the tech we develop to eliminate oil, and vastly pushing making Canada the nexus for next gen power and battery and charging tech.

 

 

You keep forgetting the facts:

Wind turbines have recently undergone dramatic technological improvements.  They don’t just pump sea water out of Holland anymore.

50% of Iowa’s electricity comes from wind. 
50% of Denmark’s electricity comes from wind. 
30% of Texas’ electricity comes from wind. 
 

Canada has a lot of wind. 
Windmills do not cause cancer.  
Windmills can operate in extreme cold.  
Windmills don’t take up a lot of space. 
Spread over enough space, there’s always wind blowing somewhere. 
Wind has a $0 fuel cost. 

Wind is the biggest enemy those Arab terrorist dictator leaders have got.  

[Rebound]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The short answer is "the part where it can't provide 100 percent of the power". 

Also - your statement is factually inaccurate and misleading where it is accurate.

Wind power does not produce 50 percent of the power in texas. 

wind power accounted for at least 15.7% of the electricity generated in Texas during 2017, as wind was 17.4% of electricity generated in ERCOT, which manages 90% of Texas's power.^[4][5] ERCOT set a new wind output record of nearly 19.7 GW at 7:19 pm Central Standard Time on Monday, January 21, 2019.^[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

At their best - the best days they had - it produced 40-50 percent of the power CREATED IN TEXAS (not including other sources) during THAT DAY.   And that's at the time  of the year when wind is strongest, and only for short periods.

 

I could go on and prove why you're even more wrong than that - but it highlights the problem.  Why do people like you feel the need to spread misinformation like that? Texas has never ever come close to sustainably producing 50 percent of it's power needs over time.  And it has the largest deployment of wind power IN THE WORLD.

 

SO really - you're out there trying to get people to take this issue seriously , and you're hoping people take YOU seriously and think about this issue, and you start off with what is basically a massive whopper of a lie that anyone can disprove with 10 seconds of research.

Do you see now why there are so many deniers?  If you were more honest and upfront you'd go much further convincing people

2017 was five years ago. By 2021, wind produced 26% of Texas electricity and it continued to grow.  
https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2022/sep/energy.php

In ERCOT’s latest data, you can see that Wind accounted for far more than 1/3 of Texas’ total electrical generation for several months and 23% overall for the year:

https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/02/07/IntGenbyFuel2023.xlsx

Wind does not need to supply 100% of a region’s power.  It makes no sense to shut down all electricity generating infrastructure.  Nobody’s going to shut down a perfectly good natural gas turbine, although they might reduce output in preference for renewable energy when sun or wind are strong.  

Edited December 20, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You keep forgetting the facts:

Wind turbines have recently undergone dramatic technological improvements.  They don’t just pump sea water out of Holland anymore.

50% of Iowa’s electricity comes from wind. 
50% of Denmark’s electricity comes from wind. 
30% of Texas’ electricity comes from wind. 
 

Canada has a lot of wind. 
Windmills do not cause cancer.  
Windmills can operate in extreme cold.  
Windmills don’t take up a lot of space. 
Spread over enough space, there’s always wind blowing somewhere. 
Wind has a $0 fuel cost. 

Wind is the biggest enemy those Arab terrorist dictator leaders have got.  

The problem is we've already seen your facts are wrong.  I've posted proof that your statement about texas is entirely wrong, only about 15 percent fo their power comes from wind. I wont bother looking the others up, given the fact you've already lied twice after being provided proof there's no point.

And canada does not have 'a lot of wind'.  It's not like we don't have wind farms already. They're not getting the job done at all.

Windmills kill massive numbers of migratory birds.

Windmills suffer in extreme cold and produce less energy.

Windmills have been linked to severe ecological damage in several species.

Windmills take up an ENORMOUS amount of space for the amount of power they produce.

Wind is a massive maintenance and infrastructure cost.  Turbines require a great deal of maintenance.

 

So - again. My question is if you're correct - why are you feeling the need to lie? Why can't you just be honest? There is zero chance of us moving to wind. MASSIVE wind projects have already been done in pretty much every province i believe and it still only accounts for about 6 percent of our entire output.  We have a LOT of them - and they're causing a LOT of problems.

So the fact is wind is useless, even less useful than solar.  And solar is useless until we can more efficiently store power.

Which basically leaves us with SMR's as the only viable alternative to oil and gas and while they're getting MUCH cheaper they're still much more expensive than oil and gas

Denying the facts won't save the planet.

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The problem is we've already seen your facts are wrong.  I've posted proof that your statement about texas is entirely wrong, only about 15 percent fo their power comes from wind. I wont bother looking the others up, given the fact you've already lied twice after being provided proof there's no point.

And canada does not have 'a lot of wind'.  It's not like we don't have wind farms already. They're not getting the job done at all.

Windmills kill massive numbers of migratory birds.

Windmills suffer in extreme cold and produce less energy.

Windmills have been linked to severe ecological damage in several species.

Windmills take up an ENORMOUS amount of space for the amount of power they produce.

Wind is a massive maintenance and infrastructure cost.  Turbines require a great deal of maintenance.

 

So - again. My question is if you're correct - why are you feeling the need to lie? Why can't you just be honest? There is zero chance of us moving to wind. MASSIVE wind projects have already been done in pretty much every province i believe and it still only accounts for about 6 percent of our entire output.  We have a LOT of them - and they're causing a LOT of problems.

So the fact is wind is useless, even less useful than solar.  And solar is useless until we can more efficiently store power.

Which basically leaves us with SMR's as the only viable alternative to oil and gas and while they're getting MUCH cheaper they're still much more expensive than oil and gas

Denying the facts won't save the planet.

 

And your “proof” was five years old and I posted the most recent data. Try to keep up with the grown ups, will you?.

The rest of your comments are ridiculous and based on you making stuff up. Windmills work just fine in the cold. “Turbines need maintenance.” Geez…. Don’t you know that EVERY form of electricity generation, except solar, uses a turbine? You don’t know that? 

Coal plant? Turbine

Hydroelectric plant? Turbine

Nuclear plant? Turbine

Rotor/Stator in every form of bulk electricity generation except photovoltaic.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

And your “proof” was five years old and I posted the most recent data. Try to keep up with the grown ups, will you?.

My proof was up to 2019 - read it again.

And btw - your link says:

Quote

ERCOT’s breakdown of energy use by fuel source in 2021 consisted of 61 percent fossil fuel sources, 28 percent wind...

28 percent wind.  28 percent. Your claim was 50 percent.  This is from YOUR SOURCE.

Do you realize how stupid this makes you look?  How utterly uneducated? Your own link proves you wrong.

 

Quote

The rest of your comments are ridiculous and based on you making stuff up.

Nope - sorry. All true.  Turbines that are on the ground in sheltered buildings well secured turn out to require less maintenance than ones suspended 200 feet in the air exposed to ice and elements and attached to giant propeller blades that spin and get iced and such.  Whodathunk it.

Also - a little easier to walk into a room with the parts and service a turbine on the ground rather than one 200 ft in the air. I was shocked to hear that.  Were you shocked? I was shocked.  You 1diot.

ANd the rest of what i said was true as well.

 

So - anyone reading our exchange will realize very quickly that you either lied, or are just completely ignorant, or more likely both.   And what they'll go away with is "Man those climate freaks are so dumb and so wrong".

How is that helping you? Why is that better than just being honest and coming across as educated and reasonable? Why would you want to give people that impression?

I just don't understand. You drive people away with this stupidity. Texas is NOT providing half it's power by wind or anywhere close. Windmills take up a huge amount of space and do a lot of ecological damage. They are NOT a suitable replacement at all for our power needs, at best they're a secondary source to help take the load off.

Why not just deal with the truth?

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The short answer is "the part where it can't provide 100 percent of the power". 

Also - your statement is factually inaccurate and misleading where it is accurate.

Wind power does not produce 50 percent of the power in texas. 

wind power accounted for at least 15.7% of the electricity generated in Texas during 2017, as wind was 17.4% of electricity generated in ERCOT, which manages 90% of Texas's power.^[4][5] ERCOT set a new wind output record of nearly 19.7 GW at 7:19 pm Central Standard Time on Monday, January 21, 2019.^[6]

I said 30%, not 50%.
Your figure, BOLD FACED ABOVE, comes from 2017, not 2019.

I know this is a complex concept… but they can build even more wind turbines. And they will, because wind power is the cheapest power.  That’s because the fuel cost is zero.  Even so, of course, wind will not provide 100% electric power. That would make no sense because we have an existing electrical grid and we aren’t going to close every electric plant in the nation. That would be silly. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I said 30%, not 50%.

Still wrong isn't it.

Quote

Your figure, BOLD FACED ABOVE, comes from 2017, not 2019.

Ahem. :ERCOT set a new wind output record of nearly 19.7 GW at 7:19 pm Central Standard Time on Monday, January 21, 2019:

My figures were from 2019.  the FIRST figure was from 2017.

You still can't even tell the truth at this point.

What a putz. 

And you coudln't address a single other point i made.

You're living proof as to why nobody should bother listening to anything you climate freaks say.  You can't be honest for one single second, and you can't address any of the points that are made. Pathetic.

Edited December 20, 2023 by CdnFox

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Still wrong isn't it.

Ahem. :ERCOT set a new wind output record of nearly 19.7 GW at 7:19 pm Central Standard Time on Monday, January 21, 2019:

My figures were from 2019.  the FIRST figure was from 2017.

You still can't even tell the truth at this point.

What a putz. 

And you coudln't address a single other point i made.

You're living proof as to why nobody should bother listening to anything you climate freaks say.  You can't be honest for one single second, and you can't address any of the points that are made. Pathetic.

Your only figure was from 2017.

The 19.7 GW figure of 2019 has no context. Monthly power consumption in Texas ranges from  30 to 50 GWh per month.  When wind was outputting 19.7 GW, that was between 40 to 66 percent of total generated power, but we don’t know how long that lasted.  
 

As of last March, Texas had 33 GW of wind generation capacity and they plan to build out 50 GW, so you can see the growth is substantial.  
https://energycapitalhtx.com/texas-real-estate-source-wind-power-capacity

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Your only figure was from 2017.The 19.7 GW figure of 2019 has no context.

It does if you read the whole article. And yours is still below what you claimed.

Bottom line - and the issue you're avoiding - it doesn't even provide a third of what's necessary AND as was pointed out in those sources it's seriously problematic because the power production is not consistent. While it might deliver 28 percent over a year, there could be a week where it's a tiny fraction of that but you still need to have power. So they still need to have regular generating capacity.

So  as i said to start with  - it can't even come close to replacement.

And the other subject you are avoiding is the environmental damage from windmills.  And no, they can't just "build more".

Again - you can't actually address these critical points and either ignore them or simply lie about them.  Canada has been aggressively pursuing windmills for decades now - and with all that its' mostly been a poor return and only accounts for a very small portion of our power production.

When you stop with the bullshit and get serious about it then you can hope that others will too but when you come up with bullshit and lies and exaggerations then you just prove the other side's case.