Posted on 01/14/2023 6:14:10 AM PST by MtnClimber
Assumes nameplate electric generation is cost free. Rather it is MORE expensive than non-renewable sources.
And the materials such as used fans and batteries are a permanent blight on the environment.
This is just halfassed apologetics.
>>His math is flawed in that there is no modifier/multiplier for the value of virtue signaling. It enables that deep, warm inner smugness of being smarter than others.<<
Smugs/kwh are very much a sales metric.
Great article, thanks for posting it!
I read the Wattsup post and thought to myself, that can’t be right, why not just add more turbines, otherwise known as bird choppers? But my math skills are so bad I had to go to law school, so I didn’t even bother with the comments there.
Wait just a fooking minute ... if Germany has already over-built and has excess capacity much of the time, why are many Germans freezing their butts off, energy prices going thru the roof, and coal-fired power generators being brought back online?
So on a series of cold and calm nights in Germany is Mudder Gaea going to raise the temperature so folks don’t freeze? Sorry, but reliance on any energy source that relies on wind/solar is foolish.
> Logic and facts don’t mean anything to an emotional ideologue.
The people making the decisions aren’t emotional. They’re constructing a world of want, not plenty, on purpose, for the purposes of control.
Therefore they promote ignorance without which logic has nothing to stand on, and which leaves only emotional appeal.
Case in point: schools don’t cover Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, because if they did people would know how logical vs emotional appeals work out and be forewarned.
(I would like to call these “elites” stupid for not preferring a world where we venture to the stars and they rule over the triumph of humanity as lauded heroes. In truth they’ve intentionally chosen control and misery, so “stupid” isn’t sufficient and “evil” is the only right term. They, like Milton’s Satan, prefer to rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven, but what they ought to realize is that everyone serves someone — and they serve Hell.)
Luddites in lab coats.
True, except the trend in this country is to remove dams ... for the environment.
It is the price that they are paying for following leftist pied pipers over the edge of the cliff.
Except that the energy expended in pumping water uphill is always greater than the energy generated by the water flowing back downhill.
Oil and natural gas ARE renewable. They are byproducts of the earth. We couldn’t use them up if we tried. Granted, some pockets are easier to harvest than others. The idea that “fossil fuel” comes from decaying dinosaurs and prehistoric plants is goofy at best. The term was coined by Rockefeller trying to make crude oil seem less noxious. Why is it demanded we reject the use of our God given natural resources? (Rhetorical question)
That post seems a mite incorrect
Consider too that windmills must be shut down when there is too much wind. Gale force winds can tear these behemoths to pieces. Overbuilding of windmills also raises the question of where will they be built. The best places for steady winds will quickly be exhausted by overbuilding so it will be increasingly necessary to build them in less ideal locations where winds are more fickle. Windmills and solar farms in the Midwest are also competing for farm land. A field of windmills or solar panels can produce no crops. Building windmills is just going down the rabbit hole of green renewable energy.
Agreed, but I believe what he is suggesting is instead of wasting the excess energy, we use it to pump water uphill. Then, when there isn’t wind or sunshine, we can use the hydroelectric generation as a reserve source.
When you absolutely, positively, have to reduce the world population to ~500 million folks........................
Tucker interviewed a lady last night about the increased deaths of whales on the east coastMore hard hitting up to the minute reporting on what's happening today. I guess the Biden document story is DOA at never-Trump Murdoch News.
That’s already been done for conventional power (pumped hydro power) and is being developed further for use with renewable and renamed “water battery”.
https://www.hydroreview.com/hydro-industry-news/a-water-battery-it-could-happen-soon/
“True, except the trend in this country is to remove dams ... for the environment.”
The environazis are only in favor of an energy source that doesn’t yet exist. Once it is actually made to work, they will be against it.
They’re not in favor of cheap clean energy, they’re in favor of no energy... and ideally getting rid of humans who are spoiling they’re beautiful mother earth.
For them unlimited cheap energy would be the biggest nightmare, because with abundant energy man has more power to change the earth, the environment, to his liking, and they hate that more than anything else.
If the energy generated to operate the pumps came from a source that would otherwise be wasted, that would obviously conserve energy; but, if the energy came from the hydroplant, wouldn’t it be better to simply restrict the outflow?
When the wind isn’t blowing (or if it is blowing too hard) and the sun isn’t shining (at night) it doesn’t matter what the nameplate capacity states, the output will be at zero from both “unreliables”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And that’s a fact. Anybody with an interest in the makeup of electrical supplier will at some time had a discussion with a ‘greenie envirowacko’ who when faced with the question about capacity and reliability, is apt to say something inane like “we just need more wind turbines and solar panels... the wind is always blowing or the sun is shining somewhere.” I got into such a discussion recently... when this occurs, I often refer to the IESO website (Independent Electricity System Operator). This is for the Province of Ontario. Why Ontario? It’s because it is the largest single landmass in North America that has a very high level of IWTs (just a tad less than 3,000) spread over a very broad area (spanning about 1,000 miles from the IWTs at the farthest east to the ones installed at the farthest west) and at a glance, one can see how all of them are performing in real time. I’ve had occasions where I’ve challenged a greenie to go look at the real time data and much to their chagrin, the output is typically pitiful and, in some instances, I’ve seen it at zero . As a matter of fact, right now the total output is only 500 MW… and this from just under 3,000 IWTs? https://www.ieso.ca/localContent/map/default.htm
There is a blogger in Ontario named Parker Gallant who has been a complete bulldog on this issue. Back in July, he addressed a question similar to the discussion on WUWT with Monckton. The question Gallant tackled was this… “How many wind turbines would be needed to replace Ontario’s gas plants?” The answer he calculated was 34,000 IWTs at an average size of 2.5 MW which is basically 12 times what they have now….. but that was qualified as being what was needed on the particular day in question. If there is no wind, an infinite number of IWTs will still only generate zero MW. https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-many-wind-turbines-needed-to-replace-ontarios-gas-plants/
By the way… every time I hear someone use the word ‘renewables’, I use the word ‘unreliables’… or the ‘intermittents’ or sometimes, the ‘intermittent unreliables’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.