Poor MTG

[utvolpj]

Yet the Germans are in the process of shutting down nuclear power plants.

The road blocks that are there for coal, gas, and oil... are the same roadblocks for nuclear.

I don't believe I've defended stupidity wrt energy

 

[LSU-SIU]

I don't believe I've defended stupidity wrt energy

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

The gist of the MTG tweet is on the mark.

 

[utvolpj]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

The gist of the MTG tweet is on the mark.

Only if you assume 100% of someone's energy comes from solar without any battery storage. That's a pretty big leap to find the mark she supposedly hit

 

[LSU-SIU]

Only if you assume 100% of someone's energy comes from solar without any battery storage. That's a pretty big leap to find the mark she supposedly hit

But that isn't the gist of the tweet, imo. The gist of the tweet is all this solar/wind **** is **** at scale. Its to me poking fun of the places and people that going all in on something that clearly won't work.

Solar/wind are just not an option at scale, and probably won't be for 50-100 years.

 

[utvolpj]

But that isn't the gist of the tweet, imo. The gist of the tweet is all this solar/wind **** is **** at scale.

Solar/wind are just not an option at scale, and probably won't be for 50-100 years.

No the gist of the tweet is that solar doesn't work at night. I know multiple people with panels and a battery that keep the lights on after dark

 

[LouderVol]

The plan was to replace it with green energy ****, but that doesn't work at scale. So, they did what you wanted them to do.... and it will fail.

They could have invested in all kinds of energy projects from building out coal plants to nuclear, they went the green way. Your way.

What you are saying is they should have have doubled and tripled the stupid green plan, well, they would be just that much more down the shitter.

You really aren't making sense.

What you are doing is saying.... we sell things at a loss but we'll make it up on volume.

The generation side works. The storage is the issue. And they are coming out with new more efficient/effective ways of doing this. What's funny is they are actually going old school with the new tech. Storing electrical energy as heat energy in ice or sand, that can be converted back to electrical energy during down times. It's not efficient with an additional shift, but it will work, and wont really matter because the efficiency loss is from a free source.

 

[LSU-SIU]

No the gist of the tweet is that solar doesn't work at night. I know multiple people with panels and a battery that keep the lights on after dark

Solar doesn't work at night, that is true, so she is correct. Batteries can work at night if charged but whether it powers a house all night would depend on many factors.

Many people don't have battery backup, why? You're costs go up massively.

She isn't wrong, but the gist of the tweet to me is making fun of the stupidity of places like California.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The generation side works. The storage is the issue. And they are coming out with new more efficient/effective ways of doing this. What's funny is they are actually going old school with the new tech. Storing electrical energy as heat energy in ice or sand, that can be converted back to electrical energy during down times. It's not efficient with an additional shift, but it will work, and wont really matter because the efficiency loss is from a free source.

To me its not about whether things will work or not, its about costs. The world nor the united states will function with 5-10 times the energy costs.

There are the newer flow battery technology, it seems promising at scale. But even if it were to work at scale, we're talking 50-100 years to roll all this out at scale.

At the end of the day, its about costs though. The world only exists with 7 billion people through cheap energy... otherwise a good number are going to have to go.

 

[LouderVol]

To me its not about whether things will work or not, its about costs. The world nor the united states will function with 5-10 times the energy costs.

There are the newer flow battery technology, it seems promising at scale. But even if it were to work at scale, we're talking 50-100 years to roll all this out at scale.

At the end of the day, its about costs though. The world only exists with 7 billion people through cheap energy... otherwise a good number are going to have to go.

I still see green tech as the way forward. In a big part because of what you see as the flaw of scale.

I see more in number, but smaller in scale forms of generation with their own storage that feeds a small(er) area. This means one shut down wont kill an entire state like the cold in Texas did. With smaller scale "plants" you can pick the most efficient option for the area instead of just plopping down the same old system everywhere. That customization is better able to deal with local demand and problems.

The upfront costs are high just because it's a new system. but maintenance and run costs are cheap because you have completely removed the raw energy cost. Our current system doesnt work, a new system, even if it's just more coal, is needed, so the upfront cost is not as big of a delta as you want it to be.

Yeah there is a learning curve and adjustment period, but so what? You are able to remove a problem completely instead of just forestalling it to the next guy, who just does the same. As PJ pointed out the reason we are in this mess is because of the resistance. If we had started small and worked gradually up the transition wpuldnt even be noticed. But big oil and coal has fought and killed alternates since they took over.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

To me its not about whether things will work or not, its about costs. The world nor the united states will function with 5-10 times the energy costs.

There are the newer flow battery technology, it seems promising at scale. But even if it were to work at scale, we're talking 50-100 years to roll all this out at scale.

At the end of the day, its about costs though. The world only exists with 7 billion people through cheap energy... otherwise a good number are going to have to go.

Yeah they have huge upfront costs due to the oil and coal industry blockading it for decades. That is price we will have to pay to correct course. Long term costs are substantially cheaper. The longer we wait, the more it will cost.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Yeah they have huge upfront costs due to the oil and coal industry blockading it for decades. That is price we will have to pay to correct course. Long term costs are substantially cheaper. The longer we wait, the more it will cost.

No, that is basically part of the lie the Germans were sold. Which is why all those wind farms they have are now a noose. Those wind turbines have to be decommited. Its the same reason Google shut down their solar thermal boiler plant.

This Billion Dollar Solar Plant was an EPIC Failure

I believe they have already went the bankruptcy route once, and I believe the video is incorrect... it is my understanding that its operating again. Going to be like the airlines, continuous bankruptcy. They can't compete which is why the powers that be want to massively stop fossils i.e. costs. You increase the cost of traditional energy sources to make yours seem great.

There is nothing great about any of this stuff. Its about costs, what they are doing is massively increasing the price of traditional energy sources to make theirs look promising. By the way these thermal plants still use massive amounts of natural gas.

Its all about costs whether its initial technology research, initial build, maintenance, input costs or decommissioning costs.

Increase global cost (meaning resources) of energy 5-10 times, Mad Max.

Mass Decommissioning of German Wind Turbines Could Cost Hundreds of Millions of Euro More than Planned, Overwhelm Disposal Capacity

The true costs are never given to the public.... they'll find out when its too late.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I still see green tech as the way forward. In a big part because of what you see as the flaw of scale.

The upfront costs are high just because it's a new system. but maintenance and run costs are cheap because you have completely removed the raw energy cost. Our current system doesnt work, a new system, even if it's just more coal, is needed, so the upfront cost is not as big of a delta as you want it to be.

Maybe one day, but in today's world it takes considerable more money and resources to generate off of non-traditional energy sources.... generally speaking. If you don't scale the costs are mega huge, and there is no real practical way to scale in most places TODAY. Maybe one day you will be correct, if you were correct there wouldn't be needs of the trillions of dollars government handouts.... people will take a 30-50 ROI.... which is why people are not investing in new gas/oil/coal/nuclear projects.... they don't foresee a return in 30-50 years based on government action.

None of this is affordable, so.... when you running the scam you try and make the competition look worse.

Anyone telling you the ROI is 100+ years is running a scam, which is what they are doing.

So... they have been subsidizing this stuff on massive basis for what 20+ years.... how much additional energy output has occurred in 20 years? Almost none, and in 15 years ZERO.

Energy output is actually nosediving on a per capita basis. Now the why? Oh, no or limited incentive to build something real and cost effective, incentives in stuff which aren't going to work at scale nor are cost effective.

Who is going to pay $1-2 a Kwh.... Mad Max time. At the end of all economic activity is a unit of energy as input costs All this stuff and junk i.e. food, clean water, houses, ipads, etc. exist because of a functioning credit system and cheap energy. Remove the cheap energy and it all goes away.

The only reason you are seeing any type of large scale solar and wind farms or other is government handouts, general speaking, remove the government tit and the project will most likely be gone. Why? Negative return.

 

[LSU-SIU]

How many nuclear power plants would be needed to produce enough energy if 50% of current cars were electric?

Here is some discussion on how much energy you need to get just 50% of the vehicles to electric in the United States. I will also note that this discussion doesn't really involve population or vehicle growth, just based on assumption on current vehicles usage.

Most calculations I have seen, without population growth... somewhere in the 70-100 new nuclear range. As far as replacing all vehicles, that isn't going to happen, let alone converting industries, homes and buildings to pure electricity.

Now if you want to do it with solar panels.... the numbers are staggering. A typical nuclear plant of 1,200 megawatts would require 5,000 (200 watt solar panels) for 1mw times 1200, so roughly 6 million panels at 200w or 3 million at 400w. Of course, this doesn't account for day/night cycle, clouds, bad weather, etc. So, depending on where you are or the plant is... you figure 2-10 times the number of panels.

Now say you need 20m panels to replace the nuke plant (probably on the way low end, I would imagine 40-80m to be more realistic) and assuming you can fit 1000 (4x8 panels) on an acre, you would need roughly 20,000 acres to put the panels on than you have to maintain not only the land but the panels and all the connection between them. Also, you loss roughly 1% a year with wear and tear on the panels, although that probably slows down at 20 years. To replace 50% of the vehicles and power them with solar... my guess would be you need 1.4b to 5.6b solar panels. (I think this is on the very low side, I could see 10b 400w panels needed)

You're looking at a 100-200 year process to get off of traditional energy sources without adding new energy consumption i.e. EVs or population growth.

Basically, we're looking at a coming disaster from the nutjob greenies.

I hope nobody likes food. No cheap energy, no cheap food.

 

[DonjoVol]

Look at Texas

So because it won't always work in Minnesota it's not a tenable solution? Instead of solar how about they use geothermal?

How about they use what already works.

 

[utvolpj]

How about they use what already works.

Because I want a clean earth to hand down. Energy done with renewable is also less impacted by silly chain issues. It also doesn't require the worldwide deployment of us troops to defend its funding

 

[LouderVol]

Maybe one day, but in today's world it takes considerable more money and resources to generate off of non-traditional energy sources.... generally speaking. If you don't scale the costs are mega huge, and there is no real practical way to scale in most places TODAY. Maybe one day you will be correct, if you were correct there wouldn't be needs of the trillions of dollars government handouts.... people will take a 30-50 ROI.... which is why people are not investing in new gas/oil/coal/nuclear projects.... they don't foresee a return in 30-50 years based on government action.

None of this is affordable, so.... when you running the scam you try and make the competition look worse.

Anyone telling you the ROI is 100+ years is running a scam, which is what they are doing.

So... they have been subsidizing this stuff on massive basis for what 20+ years.... how much additional energy output has occurred in 20 years? Almost none, and in 15 years ZERO.

Energy output is actually nosediving on a per capita basis. Now the why? Oh, no or limited incentive to build something real and cost effective, incentives in stuff which aren't going to work at scale nor are cost effective.

Who is going to pay $1-2 a Kwh.... Mad Max time. At the end of all economic activity is a unit of energy as input costs All this stuff and junk i.e. food, clean water, houses, ipads, etc. exist because of a functioning credit system and cheap energy. Remove the cheap energy and it all goes away.

The only reason you are seeing any type of large scale solar and wind farms or other is government handouts, general speaking, remove the government tit and the project will most likely be gone. Why? Negative return.

And that's exactly how oil and coal got going to. They got in bed with the government for favorable rates that make it cheap. All I want to see is the opprotunity spread around.

Oil and gas get to drill or mine on government land, solar or wind gets the same options. Tax rebates, emergency funding etc. Acting like green tech has some huge government advantage is laughable with the century long lead oil and coal has in DC.

We have to have change. Our energy field has been stagnant for centuries. I would rather see us go through a steady transition than wait until failure to switch.

 

[LSU-SIU]

And that's exactly how oil and coal got going to. They got in bed with the government for favorable rates that make it cheap. All I want to see is the opprotunity spread around.

Oil and gas get to drill or mine on government land, solar or wind gets the same options. Tax rebates, emergency funding etc. Acting like green tech has some huge government advantage is laughable with the century long lead oil and coal has in DC.

We have to have change. Our energy field has been stagnant for centuries. I would rather see us go through a steady transition than wait until failure to switch.

Gas and oil had customers they were competing with horse and donkey. That was the beginning of the industrial age. This is the opposite.... going to less efficiency. Its not about get going... solar has been available for 40-50 years. Its like saying a horse is better than a tractor... in this case they are on purpose trying to make the tractor worse to make it seem like their horse is competitive.

Its about costs. Why did farmers buy a tractor, the tractor is better... more efficient. These other energy sources are not better, we can wish they were better but they are not as far a costs... and its not even close.

What we are going to witness is massive depopulation which has been done on purpose.

The scam is to make it look like the horse is more efficient by trying to increase the price (or input) to the tractor, but all that does is increase the cost of the input of the horse as well. Depopulation will be coming in mass. You don't feed 7+ billion without very cheap energy. Nobody is investing in anything really energy related except some silly battery technology which would require 50+ years to have any real impact.

The Titanic doesn't turn on a dime... the plan to me is depopulation as nobody with any brain cells could actually believe any of this going to happen.

Where exactly is all this great new energy output exist? It doesn't... energy output is about the same as it was 15 years ago! Its barely more than it was 20+ years ago.

 

[sonofUT62]

We need more people like her in congress.

Maybe in Pyongyang.

 

[Elhanan]

I thought this thread was going to be about her being swatted.

 

[DonjoVol]

Because I want a clean earth to hand down. Energy done with renewable is also less impacted by silly chain issues. It also doesn't require the worldwide deployment of us troops to defend its funding

You still haven't proved how alternative forms of energy are going to work on a massive scale. We still need fossil fuels and will need them in the future. Plus mining lithium and other minerals needed for these "green policies" could potentially be worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Sounds like you have some more homework to do on this subject.

 

[utvolpj]

You still haven't proved how alternative forms of energy are going to work on a massive scale. We still need fossil fuels and will need them in the future. Plus mining lithium and other minerals needed for these "green policies" could potentially be worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Sounds like you have some more homework to do on this subject.

Nuke will work on a massive scale. Let me know if you want some resources on that for studying.

Also, if you've read any of my posts today, you would understand I've never said this is an all or nothing exercise. In fact I've said quite the opposite. You seem to struggle with very simple concepts

 

[LSU-SIU]

Nuke will work on a massive scale. Let me know if you want some resources on that for studying.

Also, if you've read any of my posts today, you would understand I've never said this is an all or nothing exercise. In fact I've said quite the opposite. You seem to struggle with very simple concepts

Well, you are at least reasonable on that level the problem is the nutjobs want it all gone. At the end of the day, all energy sources are needed... nobody's dick is going to fall off because there are coal plants. Matter of fact, the exact opposite, coal plants were getting very efficient on real pollution output.... so they had to come up with the new monster i.e. CARBON. Its a scam, now what isn't a scam is new energy source are needed in the next few hundred years... over time.... new stuff needs to come online.

If someone said, you know.... over the next 100-300 years the world needs new tech for new sources of energy. Let's plan for slow adopting over 100-200 years. I'm all for that... that isn't happening... its a transition to a dead end and for no reason.

Unfortunately, time is expiring on all this... everyone better buckle up for the next few decades.

New nuclear plants are not coming online for decades even if a decision where to be made to reverse all this nonsense. People are going to have to go I think.

 

[utvolpj]

Well, you are at least reasonable on that level the problem is the nutjobs want it all gone. At the end of the day, all energy sources are needed... nobody's dick is going to fall off because there are coal plants. Matter of fact, the exact opposite, coal plants were getting very efficient on real pollution output.... so they had to come up with the new monster i.e. CARBON. Its a scam, now what isn't a scam is new energy source are needed in the next few hundred years... over time.... new stuff needs to come online.

Unfortunately, time is expiring on all this... everyone better buckle up for the next few decades.

Coal needs to go away yesterday. It's dirty and pollutes everything. My dad worked on those plants for the govt and clean coal always gets a good laugh from him

 

[LSU-SIU]

Coal needs to go away yesterday. It's dirty and pollutes everything. My dad worked on those plants for the govt and clean coal always gets a good laugh from him

Technology exists and was being deployed and put into coal plants. That is why they came up with the CARBON nonsense. Of course with coal is still coal ash which has to be dealt with... but the same nuclear (waste) or even solar panels or batteries manufacturing.

Here in NC they had a coal ash spill a few years ago, and it will take some time to clean but that can be said of anything. Its pretty ****ing clean where I live. LOL

That is the reason they came up with the whole CARBON monster i.e. it releases carbon so its dirty. LOL Its nonsense. The truth of the matter is this country probably could last a thousand years on coal, and do fairly and reasonable clean unless you consider carbon pollutant.

The myth at all these things are clean are laughable.

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?

In North Carolina... they consider biomass burning "green energy"... its a scam.

Even man tits Michael Moore figured that one out.

Planet of Humans

 

[Grand Vol]

Coal needs to go away yesterday. It's dirty and pollutes everything. My dad worked on those plants for the govt and clean coal always gets a good laugh from him

Explain that to China and India who have an open bid to build a many plants as they want according to the Paris Treaty...